Stock Collapse
There has been much coverage of the stock exchange crisis. Much of it has had little to offer by way of highlighting both the nature of the stock exchange and capitalist relations itself. The bourgeois media have been at pains in holding what they call reckless and dishonest company directors responsible for much of this crisis. It is said that if directors did not engage in irresponsible and dishonest conduct the credibility of the equity market and corporate activity would have remained largely intact. Share prices. it is claimed, would not have consequently fallen so steeply. The very corporate figures that were held in such high regard, the bourgeois media tells the working class, are now the disgraced buccaneers of today. This is a subjectivist perspective of events. Falling share prices are not, in any sense, the result of corporate swindling. Swindling, in one form or another, has been a perennial feature of capitalist exploitation. Boom and speculation increase encourage swindling. Legislation and regulation can never change this. It is these very problems that justify the fight for an end to capitalism. If sharp practice was not a feature of modern capitalism then communism cannot be a historical necessity. Communists fight for the abolition of capitalism precisely because of the many problems it throws up: wars, starvation, attacks on the working and living conditions of the working class. Share prices have been falling because of the global capitalist crisis. There is economic crisis in Asia, South America, Europe and North America. This crisis was caused by over-accumulation of capital with respect to the existing rate of profit. The crisis, then, has its source in the valorisation process. Falling profits means that total surplus value has been diminishing. Diminishing surplus value has been increasingly insufficient to sustain the accelerated capital expansion. Within the context of capitalism the only solution to the problem is an increase in the productivity of labour sufficient to yield rising profitability. To raise productivity to such levels the means of production, technology, has to be revolutionized. This was the principal basis for the last sustained boom. The technological revolution itself involves enormous investment of capital. This promotes economic expansion by leading to significant increases in productivity. But recovery is promoted by the enormous increase in demand caused by the very capital investment itself. Because of difficulty in achieving this capital must push the price of labour power below its value, increase the intensity of labour, increase labour discipline and cut back on social welfare expenditure. This strategy will lead to increasing tension between the capitalists and workers. It is a risky strategy since it may lead to the increased radicalisation of the working class culminating in the revolutionary reconstitution of society. Falling corporate profits have led to the demise of corporations, scaling down of operations, shorter working hours, unemployment, inventory increases and price falls. Investors grow increasingly nervous only to eventually shed shares. This tends to bring share prices down which in turn causes further sell offs. The underlying contraction in the accumulation of capital forms the basis for the progressive decline in stock prices. Falling markets render it increasingly difficult for many corporations to raise funds. Corporations that have been cooking the books in order to increase or maintain their share price are increasingly exposed. It gets increasingly difficult to sustain their artificial position. The result is exposure of the corporation's real position. Insider trading by the corporate directors results in the mass sell off of the corporation's shares in anticipation of a share collapse. This action by the directors precipitates the very problem that was anticipated. Revelations lead to further falls on the stock market. The scandals surrounding these corporations further increase investor nervousness leading to further price falls. Governments and other interested parties attempt to steady the market by making statements about cracking down on irresponsible and dishonest corporate directors. Its principal aim is to steady the market in the interests of the very elements that it ostensibly reviles. Karl Carlile As share prices tumble the volume of foreign capital into the US begins to diminish while many foreign investors are sell and then withdraw capital. Net capital inflow correspondingly falls leading to a fall in the value of the dollar. The falling dollar encourages further sell offs which causes a further slide of the dollar. The cheap credit policy that the Fed introduced looses its effectiveness. It becomes meaningless credit that --anti-credit. Nobody wants to avail of cheap credit since the state of the financial markets
PLO and IRA
The PLO (Hamas included) exists to contain the Palestinian masses and prevent them from joining with its Jewish counterpart to create a Palestinian federation of workers' communes in the struggle to abolish capital. As with Sinn Fein/IRA in Ireland its aim is not the national self-determination of the Palestinian masses but the promotion of their continued subjection. The Provos, Sinn Fein\IRA, were set up during the earlier stages of the troubles in the North of Ireland. They were set up as a counterweight to the more progressive left oriented groups that had been growing in popularity --Sinn Fein (Gardiner Street) later to be called the Workers Party and other elements such as the Communist Party and People's Democracy. They were secretly funded and supported by the government of the Irish Republic --and probably the British and US governments. The fear among the bourgeoisie in Ireland, Britain and the US is that the growing insurrection of the Catholic masses against the sectarian statelet in the north of Ireland might lead to the growth of politically radical elements with the possibility of a challenge by the Irish working class to capitalism in Ireland. Consequently the bourgeoisie supported and funded the socially and politically conservative Provo IRA. The ensuing growth in influence of the Provos among the Catholic masses in the north of Ireland meant the struggle there was being increasingly contained and deflected from a more radical path. The growing radicalisation, it was feared by capitalism, might even lead to growing unity among the working class of Ireland culminating in the overthrowal of capitalism. This context forms the basis for the split within the Irish republican movement, as it was called, leading to what became known as the Officials and the Provos. There were bitter feuds between these two elements entailing murder. The infamous Arms Trial involving government and military personnel forms part of this move by capitalism to defeat the insurrection by the Catholic masses . The arms trial, it is believed, was based on the issue of the Irish government importing arms into Ireland for use in the north of Ireland. There are many other matters which may have been related to this entire issue such as the murder of Garda Fallon by a group of bank robbers who were said to be members of Saor Eire. The murder of Peter Graham who had associations, it is believed, with Saor Eire. Peter Graham was a relatively prominent young Trotskyist figure. He was, it would appear, a member of the sister organisation of the SWP(USA). He had been found shot dead in a flat in Harcourt street. Curiously the perpetrators of both murders were never arrested. Saor Eire had connections with the Citizens Committee which, it would appear, was a committee set up as a cover for covert government involvement in the north of Ireland. Not everybody actively involved with the Committee understood this at the time. However there would have been some who did. Maureen Keegan, a member of the League for a Workers Republic who had apparently been in Paris in '68 and had French was a link between trotskyism and Saor Eire. There was a split in the League. The group, as I understand it, that Maureen Keegan sided with was the one that lined up with the USFI. They called themselves the Revolutionary Marxist Group and formed part of the USFI. What role the USFI played in all this remains a mystery to outsiders. Tariq Ali and Gerry Lawless did, as I understand it, attend the funeral of Maureen Keegan which was held in Dublin. This entire period needs to be written from this standpoint by communists. It is a neglected history that requires to be written since there are lessons to be learned from it. A son of Garda Fallon wants his father's case reopened. He has made some interesting public comments on the matter of his father's murder. There are some people from the radical left who have knowledge of these matters. For a variety of reasons they have chosen to remain silent. Karl Carlile Communism Web Site: http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Market fall and credit
Falling share prices will render it more difficult for corporations to raise funds. This means that the corporations that have depended more on the stock markets for funds may find themselves facing further difficulty. These same corporations because of their poor showing on the stock markets may find it harder to raise funds generally. Many of the corporations that have been more dependent on the stock markets --the so called high techies-- are the very ones that are most squeezed. They depend on their powerful performance on the stock market rather than the market place for fund raising.This will tend to put a squeeze on performance at all levels within the corporate sector. Clearly this will lead to further contraction on the capital accumulation further restricting economic growth. This weakness on the stock markets will lead to further centralisation and concentration of capital since the stronger individual capital will find it easier to raise funds both on the stock market and elsewhere. These stronger corporations will be also in a position to pick up cheaper stocks leading to further centralisation and concentration of capital. This outcome is a product of the devaluation of existing capital. This process forms part of the necessary process in the restoration of profit conditions. It is this that makes market decline so significant. It is not a mere question of the direct effects of the weakening of the market. It is their ramifications for credit in general and its impact on the accumulation of capital. Karl Carlile To visit Communism click following: http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
plain text
Please use plain text. Other text may be virus infected. Karl Carlile To visit Communism click following: http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Re: Re: Re: Greenspan's cooked book
Hi Christian Christian: Basically, in Marx, fictitious capital is any income that is mathematically backed out of (capitalized out of) any security. As far as fictitious capital goes, for Marx there is no difference between state debt (ie treasury bills and bonds), corporate paper and stock (in fact, state debt is worse--as for the von Mises folks). None of them are secured by actually existing buildings, machines, etc., the way a loan that takes, say, a machine or building as collateral is. Likewise, any money (or money-substitute) that is not backed by gold (ie bills of exchange) is also fictitious. Karl: To say that any money that is not backed by gold is also fictitious makes is to stretch the entire notion of the fictitious notion. By its very nature money in the form of medium of exchange is not backed by gold. Fictitious capital, as I said, may be a questionable notion. Shares in capital, such as industrial capital, is real capital. The problem is that the actual titles or paper that represents that share is mistaken for the share. The titles to shares, the certificates or whatever, are merely paper. As such they are not and cannot be values. The fetishism of this paper has become so enormous that many mistake the paper for the share. The paper cannot be the share in the capital. It is merely a document that establishes ownership of the share. Thereby share capital is capital. The circulation of volumes of this paper is mistaken by some form of capital --fictitious capital-- whenit is just paper. It is analogous to the legal document that establish your ownership of a house, so to speak. The house is the property (the house) not the paper, the legal document --the deeds. To mistake the paper for the house is a gross fetishism. Analogously to mistaking the titles to share capital as a form of fetishism --the fetishisation of paper. It is to invest bits of paper with a mystical quality --a form of idolatry in which bits of paper are deified. If the public believe in the illusion and act as if the illusion is a reality then the illusion has a reality and exercises influence on social behaviour. Christian: I'm critical of the distinction because it damns central banks for mediating crises or potentially critical situations, with the hope (or a hope dressed as an assertion) that, absent such intervention, the big one would finally arrive, the working class would claim its alienated historical destiny, and all would finally be well. As if what we really needed were more 19th-century style booms and busts to advance a political project. This is just precisely what the von Mises folks argue, the difference being that for them, in the absence of the Fed, the market would finally reflect the moral order of the universe because everything would instantaneously embody its market value. Tell that to the people in South Korea whose jobs were saved by the fact that AG lowered interest rates in November of 1998, despite low US unemployment. The Fed may be guilty of being too restrictive in the most recent cycle, as Jim and Ellen Frank have argued. But AG also defied conventional wisdom for the better part of 2 years by letting interest rates remain low even though unemployment was dropping. Karl: You misunderstand. I never damned the interventionist nature of the central bank. I dont damn capitalism for protecting itself. However I do suggest that struggle against it.Neither do I suggest a big bang theory. I am suggesting that capitalism cannot be viewed in abstraction from the state. In Capital Marx largely abstracted from the state. This is not a criticism of his critique but a criticism of those that ignore this reality and fail to understand the character of the critique. Clearly capital cannot exist in the absence of the state. As capital develops, as has been confirmed by history, it requires an increasingly interventionist state that eventually assumes the form of an enormous economic agent. Consequently the Right's claim that the maket can be effectively freed from the state for all intents and purposes is a utopian illusion that serves a specific ideological function. Market fundamentalism is merely a device with which to legitimate privatisation, attacks on the living standards and conditions of the working class. In agriculture there is no free market. In Ireland, where I am located, over 1000 million Eurosa year come out of Irish taxation to support the Irish farmer. This has never become an issue in any election. It has never been raised as an issue by the Right in Ireland. Yet this same right will preach market fundamentalism in areas that mean worsening conditions for workers and improving conditions for capitalists. Then there is the financial structure. The financial structure centres around the state particular the US state --through the Fed. Without the state the capitalist financial could not exist. The Fed has largely determined rates --not the market. At the least it has an
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Greenspan's cooked book
Hi Christian Christian: Hmm, not really. The difference is that money backed by gold is convertible on demand. Fiat money is not. Karl: Concerning money as medium of exchange Marx in Capital has the following to say (and I quote): The function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold. Therefore things that are relatively without value, such as paper notes, can serve as coins in its place. This purely symbolic character is to a certain extent masked in metal tokens. In paper money it stands out plainly. Karl: Money by its very nature in the form of medium is does not have to be backed by gold. In the West it is not backed by gold as medium of exchange. Millions of paper dollars function as medium of exchange. They are not backed by gold. Yet they are money --money as medium of exchange. Christain: Not according to Marx. A stock share is a claim on future income, not on the firm's tangible assets. That's fictitious capital. Karl: You miss my point. My point is that Marx, in my view, may have been mistaken in his view of share capital, equities, as fictitious capital. I am not talking here of government stock.
Re: : Greenspan's cooked book
Hi Ellen Ellen: Money-printing can't be privatized, but it can be quasi-privatized, relegated to semi-autonomous and undemocratic central banks, like the Federal Reserve, the Bundesbank, or the European Central Bank. Removing control over money from normal avenues of democratic accountability has been one of the primary achievements of neo-liberalism. Ellen Frank, Dollars and Dinars, New Internationalist, January 20 Karl: The point I have been making is that capital cannot exist independently of the state. Some of what you comments support that thesis. Now since capital cannot exist independently of the state this means that the operation of the laws of capital can never operate in free form. Furthermore as capital develops it increasingly requires an increasingly economically active state. This means that under capitalism today the operation of the laws of capital operate in even greater unadulterated form. Consequently in any concrete analysis of the operation of capital the state must be factored into the analysis. Otherwise analysis has an overly abstract character if concrete analysis that is the intention. Marx's Capital (I include here its four volumes) was abstract analysis. It was not intended as an analysis of a particular capitalist society. The problem facing communists is in how. How is capital and the state related and how do the laws of capital operate in the context of a state? There will be always theoretical and analytical difficulties in providing concrete analysis of a particular capitalist economy while this problem has not been successfully resolved. It is in this context that I call for a review of Capital and indeed Marx's thought and politics in general. This is the task that faces communists. It is this problem that explains why there has never been any known concrete analysis of a particular capitalist economy on the basis of Capital. Any attempts claiming to be based on Capital are, loosely speaking, either overly abstract or excessively empirical. The former tends to endeavour, in some way or other, to replicate Capital while the latter tends to abandon Capital. Both are thereby frozen in history. You have witnessed this problem resurfacing again on this list in relation to the Fed's monetarism.On the question of interest rates there was a lack of clarity of the character of the relation of capital to the state: the relationship of the state to interest rates.
Greenspan's cooked book
The insanity of it. The attention devoted to the WorldCom scandal sends stock prices sliding. Yet there is no sliding when Greenspan cooks the books by manipulating the markets on a vaster scale --by messing about with interest rates. Greenspan's very lowering of rates helped promote the kind of conduct that WorldCom was responsible for. The fundamentalists that call for free markets don't call for the abolition of the role of the Fed in manipulating financial relations. The Fed constitutes the effective hub of the financial system. This means that the state is the hub of the financial system. Free markets would mean taking the state out of financial relations. We don't hear many calls for this from the right. Marx's theory of crisis needs revisiting. According to his crisis theory the interest rates should rise under economic crisis. Yet that has not been happening. This is because of the strong interventionism of the state --the Fed. The role of the state in relation to the law of value is of decisive importance. It interferes with the free operation of value relations and its laws. However it is problem that Marxists have, in general, not even attempted to resolve. However it is one that communists have been working on. Karl Carlile To visit Communism click following: http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Re: RE: Greenspan's cooked book
Jim: actually, Milton Friedman wants to take the Fed's power away. He used to want a constitutional amendment that forced the Fed to increase the money supply (however that's defined) by 3 percent or so each year, no matter what the impact on interest rates. Last time I heard, he wants the Fed to keep the monetary base (the Fed's monetary liabilities) constant, no matter what the effect on the money supply. Is he glad that his proposed constitutional amendment never got anywhere? other righties want to go back to the gold standard, perhaps because they've hoarded gold in the past and want to benefit from capital gains... Karl: The point is that in the commercial which is predominantly right wing you don't hear any such talk. Yet the same economic commentators will call for privatisation etc. The predominant popular literature on the right does not make such calls. Indeed the popularity of monetarism among the bourgeoisie has fallen. Greenspan and Bush are hardly leftwing. Yet they don't seel a Friedman solution. When Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK in the earlier years of her regime the issue of controlling the money supply was a never ending theme within the media and elsewhere. Frieman was the celeb. Despite the very low interest rates inflation does not really exist in the US. This would appear to contradict Friedman's monetarism which argued that inflation is a product of loose money. I have noticed that Hayek has been revived these days as a hammer with which to beat Greenspan. The view that cheap money is the source of speculation and the kind of sharp practice performed by WorldCom. Jim: My numbers say that the real interest rate in the US rose pretty steeply in 2001 (the crisis year), which fits with the version of crisis theory I'm familiar with. Karl: You must joking. The interest in 2001 where historically quite low. It is just that they have even lower now (the US). D
Re: Greenspan's cooked book
Christian: And, lest we forget, there is more that a little strain of such fundamentalism in Marx. The whole fictitious capital bit is of a piece with the line of history's monetary cranks. For Marx, and money created by debt that is not secured or not backed by a commodity is fictitious, with all the untoward moral and economic complications. Karl: Am not sure what you are saying here. The reference to the right wing element that you label monetary cranks may echo Marx simply because Marx's understanding is correct. You seem to be critical of Marx's conception of certain forms of paper as fictitious capital. To respond to this you will need to elaborate what it is you mean. I do agree that Marx theory of fictititious capital needs to be re-examined. Much of the time it is a standard assumption by much Marxism in its analysis of economic development.
Re: Re: Re: Greenspan's cooked book
Doug: Yup. When I was posting that thing about right-wingers love of gold, I was thinking how similiar the analysis and temperament are to lots of Marxists, with their belief that the state can only postpone, never prevent, crises; the suspicion that only gold is real money, the rest is delusion; and a Puritan, morally drenched distaste for speculation. There should be a marx-and-mixes.org. Karl: The capitalist state cannot prevent economic crises. The state may be able to influence the specific character of the cyclical crisis. It may be able to modify the depth of the crisis but not prevent it. If the state can prevent economic crisis then this means that crises are not an inherent feature of capitalism. If this is so cyclical crisis must occur because of subjectivity --the subjective decisions of policy makers, capitalists etc. This means that crisis do not have an objective character. Clearly this means that capitalism is ahistorical. It is a natural form as opposed to a social form. Consequently the law of value is a fiction as is valorisation.
Re: RE: Re: RE: Greenspan's cooked book
Jim: I may be wrong, but not joking. If you take the long-term (20 year) treasury bond rate and subtract the inflation rate, you get (one) estimate of the long-term real interest rate. It rose during 2001, even though the short-term nominal rate fell steeply. Karl: Just have a look across the Atlantic to the UK. Britain if not in recession may be bordering on it. There interest rates are quite low. If your theory is correct then interest rates should be higher. The point is that the state is centre stage when it comes to interest rates -especially the Fed. This means that interest rates are distorted by state interventionism. This means that they dont follow the course they would if the state was marginal to the rate structure and money in general. This is my real point. My real point is that there have to be questions raised concerning Marx's position on money and the cyclical crisis. The state tends to prevent a straightforward pure crisis (the lab) working its way through. The crisis must be observed in the context of the state. It is this I would like you to comment on.
Re: RE: Re: Greenspan's cooked book
Jim: While I understand the type of people that you and Doug are talking about, Marx is pretty clear about what fictious capital is: it's capitalized future income streams. It's called fictitious because the future is insecure unknown. The thing is that some of that fictitioous capital has pretty secure basis. It's a poor choice of words. Karl: The entire concept of fictitious capital may be questionable. Shares are a form of real capital --not fictitious capital.They are just what they say --a share of the capital. You say it is called fictitious because the future is insecure and unknown. But the future of any individual capital is insecure and unknown. There is no certainty that any individual capital is secure. A particular industrial capital can be forced out of business. Capital can devalue. This is what crises are all about.
Iraq and Middle East
The war on terror, as it misleadingly called by Bush, including Bush suggestion to launch a war against Iraq may have encouraged the sustained and intense aggression mounted by Sharon against Palestinian Arabs. Because such a war might encourage Saddam to launch an attack on Israel may feel the need to wipe out its internal Palestinian opposition --an opposition that might join up with Iraq in such a war-- and even push the Arab population into Jordan. Here is what may be a classic example of Bush's aggressive strategy contributing to international instability. Bush, if he really intends to attack Iraq, may support such action by Sharon. Click below to access Communism List site: http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Yours etc., Karl Carlile
Midldle East conspiracy theory
- Original Message - From: Karl Carlile [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Communism List: http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Workers of the world unite! ___ Concerning the Middle East a specific conspiracy theory may be valid: Israeli forces have surrounded and stripped Arafat down. Given that Arafat's popularity had been declining and that he has been fast becoming a figure who carried little cred Sharon may be actually (deliberately) turning him into a heroic figure holding out in his bunker in the eyes of the Palestinian masses. Sharon may be actually intending to save Arafat political and even physical life. By surrounding he may also protecting him from an Islamic assassin squad. At the same time the aggressive military exercise being undertaken by Sharon is intended to flush out, destroy and capture the more militant intifada activists including its leaders. In so far as Israel successfully achieves this aim of crushing or at least seriously defeating the militant intifida network it has also successful disposed of Arafat's competitors even rivals for power. In the aftermath the Palestinian masses will be more demoralised while Arafat will emerge as the redeemed leader whose status in the eyes of the Palestinians will have recovered significantly. Under these conditions Arafat will be in a much stronger position to copper-fasten a sell out to the Israeli state with less fear of its being upended and his being assassinated. Under these conditions too Sharon or his ilk will be, from a position of victory, in a much stronger position to have the freedom to manouevre and negotiate an effective settlemement. Arafat may even know of this plan. Please forward this posting to other mailing lists and to newsgroups --- Click below to access Communism List site: http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Yours etc., Karl Carlile Click below to access Communism List site: http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Yours etc., Karl Carlile Communism List ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Argentinian crisis
The economic crisis that has been besetting Argentina is a manifestation of the constraints of the constraints on capital generated by the nation state. The circumscription of much of Argentinian capital within the confines of its borders checks the expansion of Argentinian capital. Consequently its failure to expand beyond its borders at any substantive levels lead to crisis for this form of industrial capital. Consequently it fails to compete successfully with multinational industrial capital. It is the increasing globalisation of capital that leads to the growing crisis facing Argentinian capital that proves too nationalised to face down multinational corporations. Because increasing globalisation of capital means that costs are globally based this means that if nationally based industrial capital cannot keep costs at the internationally based level it suffers decline. Argentinian capital has increasingly failed to keep costs in line with the international average. This ! is because it is not globally based industrial capital. The lack of globalisation of Argentinian capital means that it cannot exploit international conditions to produce cheaper commodities that can compete on the global market. The forces of production have been increasingly transcending the limits of the nation state. For Argentinian capital to survive this crisis, assuming the working class does not in the meantime take power, not less globalisation but more globalisation is the requirement. For it to come out the other side of the crisis not more regulation but less regulation is the answer. Consequently the national reformism is increasingly bumping up against its limits. It seeks to find solutions based on a nationalist framework at a time when the national framework is even less justifiable than it was formerly. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the Global Communist Group web site at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Iran etc
Washington's game plan, if it gets its way, may be along the following lines: To crush the Iranian regime to create a neo-colonial regime that --a US puppet. To achieve this it must first must knock out Iraq. In this way Washington will have effectively encircled Iran. Iraq must be defeated first to prevent it from forming an alliance with Iran against US military aggression. Once Iraq is knocked out Washington has Pakistan, Afghanistan and bases in the Central Asian area. This constitutes an effective encirclement of Iran rendering an attack on it all the more successful. The attack on Afghanistan, in many ways, had little to do with the elimination of the Taliban regime and Bin Laden. The strategy was to take out Afghanistan as part of the strategy for the crushing of the relatively independent Iranian regime. Once these regimes have been turned into effective neo-colonies Pakistan will be made to become even more suppliant to Washington. A serious study of the world map shows that if Washington is successful in crushing Iraq, Iran and North Korea it will have gone some way in encircling China and Russia individually. Among its geo-strategic purposes is to increase further the geopolitics separation of Russia and China. This increases it options concerning policy goals in the these two regions. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Argentina: the struggle against Duhalde continues
for a workers' government. Its counter-revolutionary character is conspicuously expressed in its persistent failure to call for workers armed militias. This finds concentrated expression in its inability to elaborate the political tasks necessary complete the communist revolution. To achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat a revolutionary communist party is indispensable. In the absence of a revolutionary party the federation of workers committees will dissolve as fighting organisational forms. The party is the essential means for achieving power. But the need for the party cannot remain an abstract slogan. Revolutionary communists must deploy concrete tactics to effect this. Unless the communist party becomes a reality then the revolution meet will be crushed. A simple regroupment of those who call themselves revolutionaries cannot provide the solution. Such a fusion can only be realised on less than revolutionary programme - the lowest common denominator. This would not strengthen the revolutionary forces but fatally weaken them. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Sam Moore
Does anybody know much about the politics of Samual Moore the translator of Marx's Capital Vol 1. Apparently he was a friend of Marx and Engels and a comrade. He was their legal advisor. I don't have anymore information except that he may have been from Manchester. Karl
Communists dont support Guantanamo POWs.
Kate Randell: The US treatment of the 158 prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has generated shock and revulsion around the world. Photographs showing the captives on their arrival, kneeling on rocky ground, with blacked-out goggles and their hands shackled behind their backs, conjure up images of the treatment meted out by Latin American dictatorships against their opponents. Karl Carlile: The position of communists is that it is not their concern to develop a specific political supportive position concerning the incarceration and treatment of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay. In the war between imperialism and the Taliban together with the Bin Laden gang the position of communists is that they opposed the offensive mounted by US imperialism against Afghanistan. But this opposition was not tantamount to support for the Taliban regime. The communist position is that the Taliban constituted a reactionary religious regime antagonistic to the interests of the working class. Consequently, while opposing imperialist aggression, we also opposed the Taliban regime. The Taliban and the Bin Laden gang promoted the conditions that facilitated US aggression against Afghanistan. Consequently they served as agents for imperialism. They have proved to be Washington's best ally. Given this it is not the task of communism to fight for the rights of prisoners who form part of the forces of the religious reactionaries that promoted the continued backwardness of Afghanistan. Liberals and many radical leftists may make the Guantanomo Bay an issue in their vein attempts to civilise capitalism. In contrast the job of communism is much more profound --communist revolution. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Capital and English translation
There is a great need for the Marxist Internet Archive to download the Ben Fowkes English translation of Marx's Capital. Its present downloaded translation, the Moore/Aveling translation leaves a lot to be desired. Much of the translation is mistranslation. It is interesting that Engels should have given his imprimatur to this English translation which for many years was the standard translation of Moscow. Indeed this particular translation was published by them. Until the seventies it was probably the only translation available --there may have been an Everyman translation of Volume One that was of poor quality too. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Palestinian Jews
[The Christian Science Monitor - Jerusalem - 6 February 2001]:Spurred on by public despair, Israeli advocates of a mass expulsion of Palestinians are gaining strength and legitimacy as the toll of Palestinian attacks inside Israel continues to rise. Tourism Minister Benny Elon of the far-right Moledet party this week launched a campaign advocating transfer, a euphemism for expulsion, which he says can also connote an agreed relocation of Palestinians. Karl: It is clear that the entire strategy by the leadership of the Palestinians has a reactionary character to it. It is a strategy designed to maintain the polarisation between Arab and Jewish workers in the Middle East. Its effect is to provide the opportunity for the Israeli state to maintain and intensify its savage oppression of the Arab working class. It effect is to also obstruct the conditions necessary for the growth of a communist working class movement in the Middle East. It would not come as a surprise if the hidden agenda of Sharon is precisely the call made by the Moledat party. If so the current Palestinian leadership will have facilitated the realisation of this racist agenda. The strategy of suicide attacks on Jewish civilians is based on the reactionary strategy that sustained terror will increase the pressure from world opinion and the Jewish public in Israel to force the Israeli government into agreeing to a compromise on the issue of a Palestinian state. This constitues a most bankrupt strategy. It is a strategy of despair that cosnstitutes a statement that the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs has no real power. Even the description of the Palestinian Arabs as Palestinians is questionable if by that is implied that Jews are not Palestinians. The point is that many Jewish people living in the Middle East are now just as much Palestinians as are Arabs. It is pure utopian racism to suggest that the generations of Jews living in Palestine since 1948, and before, are to be expelled from what is known as Palestine. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: [PEN-L:22566] Re: [PEN-L:22555] Fw: [±¤°í]¿ì¸®¾Æ±â Àß Å°¿ì±â¸¦ À§ÇÑ Á¤Á¤´ç´çÇÑ »çÀÌÆ® ¿ÀÇ ¾È³» !
What do you do with them? Karl - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:34 PM Subject: [PEN-L:22566] Re: [PEN-L:22555] Fw: [±¤°í]¿ì¸®¾Æ±â Àß Å°¿ì±â¸¦ À§ÇÑ Á¤Á¤´ç´çÇÑ »çÀÌÆ® ¿ÀÇ ¾È³» ! I get one or two each day. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: [] !
Hi Does anybody know how I can stop these posts. What are they Karl - Original Message - From: ¿ì¸®¾Æ±â´åÄÄ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:03 AM Subject: [±¤°í]¿ì¸®¾Æ±â Àß Å°¿ì±â¸¦ À§ÇÑ Á¤Á¤´ç´çÇÑ »çÀÌÆ® ¿ÀÇ ¾È³» ! ::¢¯i¢¬R¨ú¨¡¡¾a¢¥aAA:: E¢¬¢¯©ª¡Æ¢®AOA¨¬ ©ö¡ì¡¤a¨ù¡©¨¬n¨ö¨¬ CO¢¥I¢¥U. Safety 1st / ¨¬¨¢A? / ¡¾aAu¡¾I AOAu¡Æ¢® ¨¡C¢¬A ¢¥UCa!! ¢¯i¢¬R¨ú¨¡¡¾a A©¬ A¡Æ¢¯i¡¾a¢¬| A¡×CN A¡Æ¨ú¨¡ AAAUA¡ÀCu ¨ùiCI¢¬o ¢¯i¢¬R¨ú¨¡¡¾a¢¥aAA ¡¾©ö©ø¡í AOAu¡Æ¢® ¨¡C¢¬A ¨öCCoA¡í A¡×CN AO¡ÆiA©÷AC ¢¬¢ÒAI¢¬RAo ¨ùiCI¢¬o ¢¯i¢¬R¨ú¨¡¡¾a¢¥aAA AUA¨Ï¢¬¡Æ ¡Æi¡¾¨Cu(¨öACu SC-2000) AOAu¡Æ¢® ¨¡C¢¬A¢¥UCa !! ¡Æi¡Æ¢¥¢¥O¢¯¢®¡ÆO Ca¢Òo¨ú©ªAI ¨¬¡í ¢¬¨AIA¡í ¨¬¢¬©ø¡í¡ÆO ¥ìC¨ù¡© ¡íc¡Æu¥ìa¢¬©ø¢¥I¢¥U. ¨¬¡í ¢¬¨AIA¨¬ E¡ì¨¬¢¬¢¬¨AI¡¤I¨ù¡© ¢¯i¢¬R¨ú¨¡¡¾a¢¥aAA open ¨úE©ø¡í¢¬| A¡×CI¢¯¨Ï ¨¬¢¬©ø¡íAo¢¥A 1E¢¬¨ù¨¬ ¢¬¨AIAO¢¥I¢¥U. ¨¬¡í ¢¬¨AIA¡í ¢¯©ªCIAo ¨úEA¢¬¨öA¢¬e E¢¬¨öA¢¬¨AIA¡í ¨¬¢¬©ø¡íAO¨öA¡ÆA©ø¨£ ¨ú¨¡¡¤¢®AC ¨ùo¨öA¡ÆA¨¬I¢¬| ¢¥¨Ï¢¬¡Ì¨öA¢¬e ¢¥o AI¡íoA¨¬ ¨¬¢¬©ø¡í¨úiAoAo ¨úE¨öA¢¥I¢¥U. ¢ÒCCN ¡Æi¡Æ¢¥¢¥OAC ¢¬¨AI AO¨ùO¢¥A ¡ÆO¨öA¨¡C¢¯¢®¨ù¡© A©¬Aa¥ìC¨úiA©ª ¡ÆIAI¢¬c, ¢¬¨AIAO¨ùO ¢¯UAC A¢´¨¬¢¬¢¥A ¡Æ¢®Ao¡Æi AOAo ¨úE¨öA¢¥I¢¥U. ¡Æ¡§¡ícCO¢¥I¢¥U. Copyright ¡§I 2001, ¢¯i¢¬R¨ú¨¡¡¾a¢¥aAA all rights reserved
Re: Stalinist Proyect
CB: My thought on this is that the Cubans are as or more scared than most anti-imperialists around the world at the uncertainty and openendedness of the proto and neo-fascist that the Bushites are in the process of developing. They are probably concerned not to give the U.S. any excuse at all for invading Cuba under the pretexts of the new , hypocritical anti- terrorist doctrines. Karl: It is not a matter of giving the US any excuse for invading Cuba. To suggest that playing the cute hoor will emancipate Cuba from the necessities of the class struggle constitutes the politics of reactionary utopia. Washington did not, as I have said before, bomb Afghanistan because of the existence of few morally decadent figures in the leadership of the USA. Washington bombed Afghanistan and crushed the Taliban state because the specifics of the objective conditions required such action in the class interests of US imperialism. US imperialism can only maintain and develop itself by engaging in such imperialist savagery. If it were not to engage in such activity it would not be the enormous world capitalist power that it is. If it did not enslave hundreds of thousands of niggers it would not be the power it is today. If it did not engage in systematic and sustained attack on the Native American in which probably over ten million Native Americans were wiped ou! t it would not be the power it is today.If it did not engage in a civil war in the middle of the 19th century that led to over a million fatalities it would not be the power it is today. Then there is its Vietnam war and its sustained racism. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Re: Re: Value talk
JKS: Rubbish. We can say, as I do, that capitalsim is exploitative, unfair, and unnecessary, and needs to be replaced, without adiopting a value framework. Not adopting that framework does not stuck us with demanding only higher wages. Karl: Dountlessly Justin can say what he likes. However that is neither here nor there and of no political or ideological significance. That Justin thinks otherwise is neither here nor there too. Marx through the value form was able to establish the historical limits of capital and the historical need for communism. Capital is an exposition of the historical obsolesence of capitalism. It is this that means the conditions for communism exist. With Capital Marx demonstrated the objective necessity of capitalims. He demonstrated that the struggle for communism is not a merely subjective crusade based on subjectivist ethics and morality. It is not enough to claim that capitalism is exploitative. It must be explained how it is exploitative. Marx did just that. By establishing the limits of the value form itself and the value form in the specific form of capital he made a great contribution to the development of communism. Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
US forces carry out cold-blooded murder at Kandahar
Afghanistan: US forces carry out cold-blooded murder at Kandahar hospital By Peter Symonds 1 February 2002 In a one-sided battle in Kandahar on Monday, a US-led military force shot and killed six foreign Taliban supporters who had been barricaded into a ward of the Mirwais hospital since early December. The US military put the incident down to the intransigence of the six and their desire to be Islamic martyrs. But if one strips away the obfuscations, half-truths and bald-faced lies, what took place was another case of cold-blooded murder. According to the official account, the whole operation was carried out by 100 Afghan militia belonging to Kandahar governor Gul Agha Shirzai-advised by squad of US special forces and snipers. An initial attack on the Arabs began in the early hours of the morning and was driven back. Another assault began around 1.45pm. Snipers crawled into position, soldiers broke in through the hospital windows and the sound of stun grenades, pistol fire and automatic weapons was heard by journalists gathered outside. Three quarters of an hour later, it was all over. The result: all six Al Qaeda were dead; several Afghan militiamen were wounded, one seriously. Major Chris Miller, the US officer-in-charge, told journalists: Up to the last minute, we told every man to surrender. But none of them listened. These Arabs fought to the death. Khalid Pashtun, senior adviser to Gul Agha, parroted the same line: It is all over. They fought until the last drop of their blood. We gave them an ultimatum and we said their lives would be spared, but they would not listen. We had no other choice. As far as Miller and the US military were concerned, the case was closed-the Arabs got what they wanted... and deserved. Some of his troops were sporting I love New York badges and New York Yankee baseball caps-an indication that they were out for revenge... and got it. What really took place? It is not possible to answer every question from the available press reports. All of the articles, in one way or another, echo the official position-hardened Islamic terrorists... intent on becoming martyrs... died as a result. Nothing is rigorously questioned or probed. Any more critical observations appear as afterthoughts or nagging doubts. Even by sifting these accounts, however, a different story emerges. Who were these six and were they Al Qaeda members? According to one of the hospital staff, Dr Musa, they were all young men-between 17 and 25. They were what remained of a group of 19 wounded foreign Taliban fighters trapped in the hospital in early December, following the collapse of the previous regime. The rest had fled, had been killed or arrested. Those who remained were the most seriously injured. The labels Al Qaeda, international terrorist, and Arab are applied so interchangeably in the media to all foreign Taliban supporters that it is impossible to say what their affiliations were with any certainty. Reportedly the six came from Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Yemen. Their age indicates that the majority, if not all, were not hardened Al Qaeda members, but impressionable young men who came to Afghanistan seeking to defend the Taliban regime. The very fact that they were left behind indicates their insignificance to Osama bin Laden. Why did they hold out? A number of reasons may have influenced their unwillingness to surrender, not least the reputation of newly installed governor and US ally Gul Agha. An article in the New York Times on January 6 describes the warlord as a backward thug who rules his own militia with bullying and beatings, and metes out far worse to his enemies. Before marching on Kandahar, he had exhorted his troops to show no mercy to Arabs and Pakistanis and had been good to his word when he slaughtered foreign Taliban supporters at Kandahar airport. The six Taliban supporters were boxed into a corner. Two of their fellow Arabs-in fact Uighurs from China-had been tricked by hospital staff and captured. Two weeks ago, at the instigation of the US military, the hospital had cut off their food supplies-a move that the Red Cross condemned as inhumane. According to the hospital's catering manager, Mohammad Rasul, they had only one Russian-made pistol and a number of grenades... some were badly wounded. One had lost a leg and others had been hit in the stomach. It is not even clear that the six understood the calls for their surrender on Monday. Gul Agha's spokesman explained that they had been hailed through loudspeakers but failed to say in what language. As if by way of an afterthought, he added that they had been sent a videotape in Arabic calling on them to give up. Did they fight to the death? To what extent any genuine fight took place is highly questionable. Having botched the first attack, the US and Afghan troops called up fire engines to pump water into the rooms where the Arabs were holed up. A debate took place
Re: [Arg_Solid] Re: Argentina and money
Adam: So who should take the money from the middle class? Who should tell the workers that they should make no money now that they are starving? In your ultraleftist rants you defend the bourgeoisie for making Argentina a cashless society--only because all the cash is now in foreign banks. We want a cashless society, but only when the means of production are socialized and a means to satisfy human need exist. Karl: I object to the way in which you subject me to attack by describing what I say as ultraleftist rants. This kind of sectarian bigotry fluently pours from you like bile out of a running sore. You don't even make a feeble attempt to justify the use of such venom. I could just as easily call you a superficial reactionary cretin. However unlike you I don't descend to this kind of vituperation. I have more respect for myself. Now in response to your criticism. The point is that the workers under Argentinian conditions cannot, to use your language, make money. This, in a sense, is the problem. Capitalism lacks sufficient variable capital (money wages) to advance in the form of money. Consequently the needs of the working class are left unsatisfied by Argentinian capitalism. Clearly the problem is not more money but the incapacity of capitalism to meet the need of the working class --even apparently at the most basic of levels. These conditions are verification of the historical obsolescence of capitalism and the necessity of a social form that can meet those needs --communist society. Consequently it is absurd for the working class to seek more money when there is no money available. This means that misconceive social being. Capitalism is incapable of producing the money wages that form the basis for the satisfaction of workers' needs. It is absurd for the working class to clamour for the re-establishment of money at a time when! history is destroying that very social form as manifested in the growing worthlessness of the peso. Reformists like you, who engage in cheap name calling, want to re-establish money when history is taking the working class in the opposite direction. In short reformists, such as yourself, seek to defend money against the very tide of history --objective movement. Clearly figures such as you play a decisive and indispensable role in the defence of the capitalist system. Who is then is the one out of step --you or me? Regards Karl Carlile (Global Communist Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Stalinist Proyect
I wonder what views the stalinist Louis Proyect has on Mr Castro now when his brother Raul has apparently said that if any of the prisoners in Guantanomo Bay escape the Cuban authorities will return them to the Yankee soldiers. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Value talk
Yoshie: I agree with Rakesh. One of the points of thinking in terms of value is, I think, to overcome the limit of economism. That is, thinking in terms of prices wages alone can only tell us how one segment of workers fare in comparison to others, as well as whether the purchasing power of individual workers _as consumers_ is going up or down. Thought in terms of prices wages, lower wages for other segments of workers may seem good to you, as they allow your segment to command more products services created by them. Thought in terms of value, however, lower wages for other segments of workers essentially cheapen the value of your segment's labor power. Thus, even though your real wages as well as nominal wages are going up, you may be still losing out to the class that exploit you. Thought only in terms of wages prices (terms of market competition), there is no objective basis for solidarity across barriers (occupational categories, national borders, productive vs. unproductive labor, races, genders, etc.) that separate different segments of workers, but thinking in terms of value allows us to discover the objective basis. Karl: Yes. This is precisely the problem with the radical left on the Argentinian crisis. They confine politics to the limits of price and wages. Instead transcending those bourgeois limits to the real limits that entail critique they steadfastly confine themselves to the level of reformism which reflects itself in their vulgar political economy: more wages and more money. Value relations is the only basis for critique of capitalism. Value relations is the theoretical basis for revolutionary communist programmatic action --not prices and wages. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: value and price: a dissenting note
The discussion about the labor theory of value misses one important point, which I have been trying to push for years. Suppose you want to calculate the value of a commodity according to the simple algebraic formula C+V+S Held the calculate C? Marx describes a simple method: the suppose you have a machine that last 10 years, take the C and apply 1/10 of it to the value of the final product for each year. If, however -- and Marx pushes this quite a bit -- new technology destroys the value of the remaining C before the 10 years is up, how the calculate the amount of value embodied in the constant capital consumed? Of course, such calculations are impossible. Marx's value theory is very important for showing, as Jim emphasized, how the capitalist system works, but the simple algebraic description neglects the dynamic nature of capitalism. Marx's goes much farther in his description of the dynamic nature of capitalism, but nobody seems to have incorporated that part of his work into value theory, as such. In effect, those who talk about the dynamic nature of capitalism seem to ignore value theory and those who emphasize value theory seem to ignore dynamics -- the partial exception of Alan Freeman, Andrew Kleiman, and myself. None of us has done a satisfactory job. Karl: If, as you suggest, Marx goes much further in his description of the dynamic nature of capitalism the question then arises as to how far you view as having gone and how. Your may be contain a hint that he did not go far enough. Can you elaborate please? Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Take the Money Enron.
Rakesh: Another question is who the creditor is. The creditors could be US in origin operating out of offshore accounts for purposes of tax advantage. But I don't believe the Fed's Flow of Data allows one track creditors working through offshore accounts back to their nations of origin. Karl: So what if they can or cannot. It is not an issue for the working class. It may be an issue for the bourgeoisie. But surely you aim is not to assist them in solving what may be their problems. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Enron SPV's and debt
Stephen: iv) Enron books the $100 mn as revenue today tho it may have made various promises to the bank and to future investors in the SPV to make them whole for losses (through warrants or issuance of additional ENE stock, again without full disclosure to current public shareholders). v) the SPV packages the asset into a security and sells it to large institutions or wealthy individuals as some kind of debt instrument typically, promising a return linked to the asset's future cash flows. This is done in a private placement, thus not registered with the SEC. I do not know FOF data records private placements of securities. The list of private investors in the various SPV's is only partially known. Pension funds, endowments, foundations, trust funds, are typical purchasers. Karl: This kind of stuff above is entirely designed to have a specific political effect --a bourgeois effect. Instead of analysing the Enron case to understand and highlight the way in which imperialist capital functions in its exploitation and oppression of the working Stephen tries to compete with bourgeois economic and financial commentators in spinning a story about Enron. What Enron did and did not do is, in a sense, is neither here nor there if it is not underlined by clearly defined politics based in the class interests of the working class.This is why the subscriber who suggested that value relations is the level from which wages and price must be understood. Enron must be understood from that same critical basis. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Re: Re: value and price: a dissenting note
Michael: Miyachi's solution is not so simple. You have a new computer. Some of the value will be transferred to the product today. You have no idea how long the computer will last; when it will become obsolete. Unless you have foreknowledge of the future, you cannot know how much value transfers to the product. Karl: So what! This kind of speculation is analogouse to the how many angels can fit on the head of needle or pin or whatever bull. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes (CNN)
Bush asks Daschle to limit Sept. 11 probes January 29, 2002 Posted: 9:26 PM EST (0226 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN. The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation. He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some lawmakers have proposed, the sources said Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request. The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism, Daschle told reporters. But, Daschle said, he has not agreed to limit the investigation. I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the overall review of what happened, said Daschle, D-South Dakota. But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why, he said. Cheney met last week in the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, according to a spokesman for Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, agreed to cooperate with their effort. The heads of both intelligence committees have been meeting to map out a way to hold a bipartisan House-Senate investigation and hearings. They were discussing how the inquiry would proceed, including what would be made public, what would remain classified, and how broad the probe would be. Graham's spokesman said the committees will review intelligence matters only. How ill prepared were we and why? We are looking towards the possibility of addressing systemic problems through legislation, said spokesman Paul Anderson. Some Democrats, such as Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, have been calling for a broad inquiry looking at various federal government agencies beyond the intelligence community. We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong, Torricelli said. The best assurance that there's not another terrorist attack on the United States is not simply to hire more federal agents or spend more money. It's to take an honest look at what went wrong. Who or what failed? There's an explanation owed to the American people, he said. Although the president and vice president told Daschle they were worried a wide-reaching inquiry could distract from the government's war on terrorism, privately Democrats questioned why the White House feared a broader investigation to determine possible culpability. We will take a look at the allocation of resources. Ten thousand federal agents-where were they? How many assets were used, and what signals were missed? a Democratic senator told CNN. · CNN Capitol Hill Producer Dana Bash and CNN Correspondents Jon Karl and John King contributed to this report. -- Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Castro
Is it true that Castro has said that if any of the prisoners escape they will be handed back to the US by him? Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Re: Dual Power
Rakesh At least someone seems to appreciate some of my contributions. Karl --- Karl, your post very much helped me to understand why the proposition that the emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class itself remains the implicit postulate of all socialist thought. rb
Taliban Support
Prominent radical cleric, Maulana Samiul Haq, head of the 35-party pro-Taliban Pakistan-Afghanistan Defence Council, told the crowd Muslims would continue to wage jihad against non-Muslims in places such as Chechnya, Palestine and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is our backbone. Why can't we fight jihad in Afghanistan? Haq asked the crowd. The Taliban have lost in Afghanistan but we are not disappointed nor discouraged, Haq said as the crowd chanted slogans in support of fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar and bin Laden. Several senior Taliban leaders graduated from Haq's madrassa near Peshawar. (MER) It is interesting that the Taliban appear to have had a strongers social base in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. There has been more popular protest and resistance concerning imperialist aggression in Afghanistan against the Taliban than in Afghanistan itself. In Afghanistan there has been a virtual absence of popular protest against the attack on the Taliban. It is extraordinary that there has been more support from elements within the Pashtun community within Pakistan while virtually none in Afghanistan. Recent events in Afghanistan have had a rather extraordinary character. It is clear that little of the story has been made accessible to the public. In many ways the war itself and related events has unfolded in intended secrecy. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Dual Power
to it no amount of disingenuous manipulation can suppress the freedom of the working class to choose communism or capitalism. The very existence of workers councils presupposes the political development of the working class. Consequently Adam's foolish suggestion that these councils can be the subject of manipulation by the bourgeoisie or Leninism is a contradiction in terms. It is tantamount to suggesting that workers conceal as a proletarian organisation form exists independently of proletarian politics. It consequently understands workers councils as mere abstract organisational forms that exist independently of politics. For people with the politics of Adam the workers councils are merely the site for a struggle between the bourgeoisie and Leninists for control over the councils and thereby the working class. For Adam and his companions the working class is an amorphous blob that has got to be moulded by transcendental forces such as the bourgeoisie or Leninism. Religion is dead! Long live religion. It is Leninism, then, not revolutionary communism that seeks to preach at the working class. Revolutionary communism, in contrast, views itself as forming an integral constituent part of the proletarian movement for communism. Consequently it knows that it cannot take the working class to communism. Because of this it has patience. It is prepared to concentrate on hammering out the tasks and necessities of the working class. If the working class chooses not to engages in communist dialogue there is nothing it can do. The working class is free to choose capitalism or communism. Freedom is contingency and thereby unpredictability. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Theory on Mullah Omar etc
Substantial Taliban and Bin Laden forces may be now based in Iran. It is in Iran's interests to maintain instability in Afghanistan. A stable Afghanistan may mean an oil distribution network through Afghanistan to Pakistan. This would relatively diminish the commercial and political power of Iran. This was a large reason as to why Iran backed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. The aim was to support the enemy of the Taliban to hinder the establishment of national stability. The Taliban state, it must be remembered, was increasing stability in Afghanistan in a way that no other force had for some time. Russia supported the Taliban for the same reasons as the Iranian government. Given this it may be that much if not most of the forces of the Taliban have withdrawn in tact to Iran. The so called defence of Kabul and Kandahar may have been a ploy to fool Washington. Mullah Omar may have been well gone when the broadcast that appeared to come from him was made.His claim that he would fight to the death was again meant to fool Rumsfeld and his gang. It may have been meant to fool. Some of the forces that continued to put up resistance may have volunteered such action in an effort to fool the enemy for as long as possible. The trucks that were running up and down under cover of darkness may have deliberately engaged in this activity to give the impression that forces were bigger. The Taliban needed time to withdraw men and material in an organised way. The various stories may have been largely all part of a plan to deceive the enemy. The various Bin Laden videos may have been designed to give the impression that Bin Laden was located in Tora Bora or some cave complex while he was comfortably residing in Iran. His miserable image on the last video may have been meant to suggest that he was holed up in some miserable cave. The alleged hatred between the Taliban and Iran was said by silly bourgeois journalists to be based on a hatred between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. The bitterness was based, rather, on more political conditions. The Taliban, pragmatic enough when it suited them, were hostile to Iran because they sought to undermine its authority. Iran was opposed to them, not because they were Sunni,but because they represented stability --a threat to Iranian interests. Now in the new situation the political configuration has changed. Furthermore concerning Mullah Omar, the Taliban and Bin Laden the last place many would have thought of as their sanctuary is Iran. Musharraf and others may have a vested interest in concealing their location in Iran --recall his visit to Iran.This may be why he has engaged in what would seem to be disinformation concerning Bin Laden's whereabouts. The abiding hostility to Washington must not be forgotten. There is popular support for this among the Iranian masses. This fact would created a sympathetic link with Taliban forces under attack from the Great Satan. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Communism not reform
Reuters (with additional material by AP and AFP). 25 and 26 January 2002. Thousands of Argentines Protest Over Cash Crisis. BUENOS AIRES - Tens of thousands of Argentines, from middle class businessmen to the unemployed, took to streets on Friday to bang pots and pans in the biggest protest yet against a new government struggling to end a massive financial crisis. Karl: The masses can go on strike as much as they like, bang billie cans or whatever. It is no substitute for class politics. While the working class remain tied to reformist philosophy their struggle will inevitably head towards defeat --as has repeatedly happened in the past. Where is there to go? Capitalism cannot deliver. Capitalism in Argentina cannot reform conditions in such a way as to improve living standards and conditions for workers and sections of the middle class. The only solution is the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with communism. This is the line that communists must take concerning the mass popular mobilisation in Argentina. Otherwise the mobilisation will merely mean sustained instability entailing, more pain and bloodshed for workers or an extreme right wing crackdown. The only alternative for workers is communism. The petty bourgeois radicals that suggest otherwise are left counter-revolutionaries whose bourgeois role it is to disarm the working class from the right. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Interest as form of sv
Hi Does anybody know the location of electronic material from a left standpoint on interest rates today. Karl
Popular rebellion in Argentina?
The FI writes: Thirty dead, more than 439 injured, 3273 arrested, has been the price of a popular rebellion by the traditionally unrecognised, ordinary people of Argentina. For the first time in our history, a democratically elected government was toppled, not by a military coup d'etat but by the direct action of the working and popular masses. This action was not a thunderbolt that fell from a peaceful sky. A multiplicity of struggles, popular actions and activity rejecting the existing order, paved the way. Karl: This is incorrect. The popular actions on the streets and elsewhere are not a rejection of the existing order. To constitute a rejection of the existing order these masses would have to be communists. In general they are from communism. They simply want to have a more reasonable standard of living. They are reformists rather than communists. They are of the view that capitalism can be reformed into a system that is more generous to the masses. But this is to misunderstand capitalism's nature. Accordingly the reformism of these street fighting masses will reflect itself in their demands and slogans. For too long there have been attempts by radical lefties to present mass mobilisation as constituting an offensive against capitalism. This can only be so when the mass mobilisation expresses a communist as opposed to a reformist consciousness.
Afghanistan Again
Developments in Afghanistan are a mystery. Most of the time we are presented with the Chief Karzi the dandy. You would be forgiven for thinking that he is the only Afghan show in town. The rest of the so called government we hardly hear anything of. It as if Karzai is the most powerful native figure in Afghanistan. We hear little or nothing about these great victorious armies that crushed the Taliban. Genreal Dostun has become virtually invisible. We are not informed as to what is happening in the different parts of Afghanistan -such as Herat. We are informed of the character of the relations between the different armies and factions. We do not hear of any funerals of those that were Taliban soldiers. In short the bourgeois media is highlighting its bankruptcy as a provider of information. We just have not got a clue as to what is going on in Afghanistan. Pakistan is little better. We do not know what the real response of the Pahstuns are to the new governmnent. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Re: Sharpening class contradictions
Karl: I take that for you French imperialism and US imperialism is a tautology. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ - Original Message - From: Romain Kroes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 7:33 PM Subject: [PEN-L:21664] Re: Sharpening class contradictions Together with sustained attacks on the working class growing capitalist contradictions will tend to generate increased inter-imperialist rivalry. Such rivalry developing into conflict can explode into inter-imperialist war in which the future of humanity becomes questionable. Karl Carlile Completely disconnected from reality. There is only one imperialism left, centered on the USA, the expansionism of which is called globalization. If future of humanity becomes questionable, it is due to the crisis of this last world system, taking the whole civilization to its grave. History agreed with Rosa Luxemburg, not with Lenin. Take some time to check that. RK
Sharpening class contradictions
The future portends intensified class struggle. Capitalism over the past ten years or so has produced a technological revolution in its means of production involving the transformation of information technology. Over the same period it has succeeded in recomposing the working class. This has led to deskilling of traditional trades, unprecedented flexibility of labour power and mass casualisation of labour power. To achieve this a ideological and political offensive was successfully launched against the working class. This has led to a significant weakening of the organised working class. Many corporations can now successfully establish plants in the imperialist heartlands on the condition that trade unions are excluded from the workplace. On the whole the reformist leadership of the trade union movement are quite willing to cooperate with anti working class policy in the interests of supporting capitalist investment. Indeed the prevailing leadership of the working class has been a decisive factor in contributing to the success of the capitalist attacks on the working on the ideological, political and economic levels. These changes have brought about an enormous increase in the intensity of the exploitation of labour power together with its rate of exploitation. The result is a corresponding fall in the value of labour power. These changes have exercised strong counter tendencies offsetting the tendency of the general rate of profit to fall. This has led to the economic recovery and boom experienced by capitalism over the recent past. However capitalism is now experiencing recurring economic decline. This time the economic downturn may be on a scale not experienced since the early seventies. Capital's problem is that the aforementioned counter tendencies have been progressively exhausting themselves. Consequently capital has been over producing itself on the basis of the current rate of exploitation of labour power. The only conditions that can lead to economic recovery is an increase in the technical composition of capital on a scale that produces a corresponding increase in the organic composition of capital that leading to an increase in the rate of surplus value on a scale sufficient to compensate for the fall in the general rate of profit. Given the degree to which the technical composition of capital has been increased as a result of the recent technological revolution in the means of production it is highly unlikely that this can be followed by a revolution on a scale large enough to restore profitability. Consequently the bourgeoisie will be forced to mount a large-scale offensive against the working class in order to create the political conditions that facilitate pushing the price of labour power well below its current value. To achieve this an enormous deterioration in the wages, conditions of work and social existence of workers will be a necessary feature of this process. Mounting such an offensive against the proletariat can only mean the sharpening of class contradictions. Together with sustained attacks on the working class growing capitalist contradictions will tend to generate increased inter-imperialist rivalry. Such rivalry developing into conflict can explode into inter-imperialist war in which the future of humanity becomes questionable. Under these conditions the working class, in its own class interests and in the interests of all future humanity, must organise itself on a communist platform if it is to successfully meet these challenges and turn them around into an attack on the bourgeoisie leading to the establishment of world communist social relations. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Global Communist Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
UBL demise
It may be that that Usama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are dead. When such conjecture was at its strongest it was reported that Omar had escaped, unbelievably, on a motor bike. Clearly if both these figures are dead the justification for continued air strikes by the Pentagon becomes less plausible. Washington may want the duo to be alive in relation to its strategic interests. Washington has the power to maintain the images of these two figures as living real images as long as it wishes. This is the degree of power possessed by imperialist capital at the level of politics and image. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
UBL demise
It may be that that Usama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are dead. When such conjecture was at its strongest it was reported that Omar had escaped, unbelievably, on a motor bike. Clearly if both these figures are dead the justification for continued air strikes by the Pentagon becomes less plausible. Washington may want the duo to be alive in relation to its strategic interests. Washington has the power to maintain the images of these two figures as living real images as long as it wishes. This is the degree of power possessed by imperialist capital at the level of politics and image. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Fw: Re: Fw: confidential
- Original Message - From: jomo kambule [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:12 PM Subject: Re: Fw: confidential WHY ARE YOU SENDING THIS MESSAGE TO MANY PEOPLE? Karl Carlile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ I received the following posting. I have forwarded it to various addresses: - Original Message - From: charles mosanga To: Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: confidential attn: Karl Carlile I am sending this message to you with the hope thayou will understand it's content and as well co-operate,as it will opportune us the privillage to establish mutuality and do to one another a life time favour.I got your contact from your country web. I am Charles Mosanga UGANDAN national.I do not intend to take you too much aback but ,I belive if you listen to the B.B.C. news or if you are conversant with the political events in Africa, then you should be aware of the assasination of the president of THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO President Laurent D. Kabila ,on tuesday the 16th of january 2001. This assasination was executed by my half brother COL.RACHID KAPENGA who's father hails from Congo.He was thepersonal bodyguard to the President.Prior to the president's death, my brother had surmmoned me and my mother to our family home in KAMPALA the Capital city of my Country .He showed to me certificate of deposit and other valuable documents belonging to a security company based in LOME the Capital city of TOGO inWest-Africa. He further disclosed to me that the President had secretly deposited the sum of Thirty Eight Million Seven Hundred Thousand United States Dollars($38,700,000.00) Without revealing to the security offcials the true contents of the consignment as it was deposited as a trunk box containing valuable and top secret governmental documents. He said the president had instructed him to quickly go to Lome and claim this money and hand it over to his friend president Charles Taylor of Liberia West-Africa for the purchase of ammunition to strengthen the military force of the Congo Army, following a percieved attack from the opposition forces of the United Anti Kabila Front . However,my brother was the president's most trusted guard and this gave him a direct access to the president's family and fortunately and as God will have it, a member of the Kabila family who was very close to my brother had earlier informed my brother that Mr Kabila was planning a massacre on all his opposition and might certainly extend to all his guards as he intends employing new ones for fear that his guards are too close to his family and as well know too much about his secrets. This is why my brother visited us in Uganda to hand us these documents and ask us to go to LOME and claim this money for our own use without telling us what his next intentions were as he was so much in a hurry to go back to Congo.I had barely arrived Lome when my mother called me to inform me that my brother went back and killed his boss, President Laurent D. Kabilla and as such he was equally killed by other guards who did not know what my brother knew. Now, with the new developement at hand no other person knows about this except my mother and myself and I intend to transfer these funds out of here as fast as I can that is why I am contacting you. If you are willing to assist me get these funds into your Country, I am willing to offer to you 15% of thetotal sum. I have succeeded in aquiring a mobile phone . Therefore,you can contact me on the telephone numbers (+228 9 035 155) or you can contact me on e:mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I await your soonest response. Thanks and God bless. C. Mosanga __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ - Do You Yahoo!? Get personalised at My Yahoo!.
Fw: confidential
Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ I received the following posting. I have forwarded it to various addresses: - Original Message - From: charles mosanga [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: confidential attn: Karl Carlile I am sending this message to you with the hope thayou will understand it's content and as well co-operate,as it will opportune us the privillage to establish mutuality and do to one another a life time favour.I got your contact from your country web. I am Charles Mosanga UGANDAN national.I do not intend to take you too much aback but ,I belive if you listen to the B.B.C. news or if you are conversant with the political events in Africa, then you should be aware of the assasination of the president of THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO President Laurent D. Kabila ,on tuesday the 16th of january 2001. This assasination was executed by my half brother COL.RACHID KAPENGA who's father hails from Congo.He was thepersonal bodyguard to the President.Prior to the president's death, my brother had surmmoned me and my mother to our family home in KAMPALA the Capital city of my Country .He showed to me certificate of deposit and other valuable documents belonging to a security company based in LOME the Capital city of TOGO inWest-Africa. He further disclosed to me that the President had secretly deposited the sum of Thirty Eight Million Seven Hundred Thousand United States Dollars($38,700,000.00) Without revealing to the security offcials the true contents of the consignment as it was deposited as a trunk box containing valuable and top secret governmental documents. He said the president had instructed him to quickly go to Lome and claim this money and hand it over to his friend president Charles Taylor of Liberia West-Africa for the purchase of ammunition to strengthen the military force of the Congo Army, following a percieved attack from the opposition forces of the United Anti Kabila Front . However,my brother was the president's most trusted guard and this gave him a direct access to the president's family and fortunately and as God will have it, a member of the Kabila family who was very close to my brother had earlier informed my brother that Mr Kabila was planning a massacre on all his opposition and might certainly extend to all his guards as he intends employing new ones for fear that his guards are too close to his family and as well know too much about his secrets. This is why my brother visited us in Uganda to hand us these documents and ask us to go to LOME and claim this money for our own use without telling us what his next intentions were as he was so much in a hurry to go back to Congo.I had barely arrived Lome when my mother called me to inform me that my brother went back and killed his boss, President Laurent D. Kabilla and as such he was equally killed by other guards who did not know what my brother knew. Now, with the new developement at hand no other person knows about this except my mother and myself and I intend to transfer these funds out of here as fast as I can that is why I am contacting you. If you are willing to assist me get these funds into your Country, I am willing to offer to you 15% of thetotal sum. I have succeeded in aquiring a mobile phone . Therefore,you can contact me on the telephone numbers (+228 9 035 155) or you can contact me on e:mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I await your soonest response. Thanks and God bless. C. Mosanga __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Re: Re: Duhalde Baptism of FIre
Karl: Economic crises are solved by devaluation. Not the devaluation of bits of paper. The devaluation of capital. This takes the form of the devaluation of constant and variable capital. The latter is capital in the form of labour power. The devalorisation of variable capital does not necessarily mean the lowering of wages. Marx was no exponent of the iron law of wages. The falling value of variable capital is essentially a product of increases in the technical composition of capital that reflects itself in the rise in the organic composition of capital. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ --- Karl, While I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of a devaluation, the quote from Duhalde you included below refers to those middle-class consumers and businesses that have debts in dollars. If there is no pesoification first, then most of these debtors would go bankrupt, since their debt in pesos would increase by the amount of the devaluation, but not their incomes. I must admit I am puzzled by your analysis of why Argentina hasn't recovered from its depression. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that the recession hasn't lowered the real wage enough. Once the real wage is low enough, it will again be profitable for business to produce, and the take-off will occur. This is exactly the argument that the IMF has been using: labor costs are too high. If you can screw labor a bit more, maybe things will get better. Have I missed something in your argument? Also, isn't a devaluation a way of lowering wages? As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that continuing to lower wages will produce the stated results. For example, labor legislation has been consistently eroded throughout the Menem years. De la Rua got a bill through congress (the labor flexibilization law) that basically removed most worker rights. Still, the recession contiunues and there hasn't been much sign of things starting to take off. My sense of the problem is that finance (speculative) capital has had the upper hand (a typical neoliberal result) for the last ten years, while the productive side of the economy has consistently got the short end of the deal. Two of the causes of the productive stagnation are relative prices (an overvalued peso), and the way trade liberalization was carried out. Alan
Re: about conspiracy
geopolitically through Washington's increasing oppression of other countries. In short I have in very general terms provided a sketchy outline of the programme of the far right. Organisations such as Hamas also play an interesting role. Their politics is ambiguous. They exploit the despair and anger of young Palestinians to engage in a reactionary strategy of suicide bombings that are obviously designed to prevent a Middle East agreement from being realised. Their actions are not based on their rejection of the restricted nature of the Oslo Accords. Even if Arafat was a radical socialist and had extracted a much more radical Oslo agreement from the Israeli government that gave a genuine state to the Palestinians etc Hamas and Islamic Jihad would be all the more resolute in their efforts to scupper it. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are among the best allies of Sharon and the far right in the Middle East. One might be forgiven for wondering have they been funded and supported by elements that want instability to persist. These extreme reactionary nature of these organisations must be highlighted at all times. They are no friends of the working class. The Taliban and Bin Laden play similar roles. Professional bourgeois journalism has, on the whole, steadfastly refused to conduct investigations to establish whether there are links joining the various elements together to form an orchestrated attempt to maintain and increase the oppression of the working class. The savage attack on Salman Rushdie's famous book forms part of this pattern. The attack on Robert Fisk probably fits into the pattern too --silence him. I could go on.. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Macdonald:Because it goes beyond the Afghan Clerics into every pore of the very planet Earth. I know little of who did what and do not claim to say otherwise. But Lou's piece is missing several things that would make me forget all this conspiracy stuff. First off, most of us- and here I think a few others on this list would have to count themselves in this bracket- who believe in a staging go way beyond Afghanistan. Further, very few people are putting forward the notion that a bunch of CIA operatives pulled anything off. There is no legitimate need for the sleight of hand of going from A: They knew it was going to happen- to B: the CIA did it themselves. The costs that Lou ascribes to the economy are easily cancelled out by the benefits to the Oil giants who will now be able to fly their own planes as far as the foreseeable future. With reserves diminishing as they are, beyond the point of reforming the actually existing pre -9.11 agreements, a gauntlet needed to be dropped. The US and their bourgeois bosses needed a new regime, not in Afghanistan but over and above OPEC and all things politically and geographically included.
Imperialism not progressive
Had Washington permitted an early settlement, the dreadful 1992-96 intra-mujaheddin civil war and its devastating consequences - including the rise of the Taliban and possibly the appalling mass murders in New York and Washington on September 11 - might have been avoided. (GreenLeft N. Dixon) The substance of the above sentiments are a leitmotiv of the radical left. They discuss the current invasion of Afghanistan by Washington's forces as if there was lots of room for manoeuvre on the part of the imperialist bourgeoisie. They suggest that the conditions for a stability acceptable to Washington's interests existed without the necessity of war and the air attack on the WTC and the Pentagon that followed. Much of the radical left mistakenly suggest that imperialist capital is free to choose a range of options. They are of the view that capitalism is rational. Consequently problems in general can be solved in a rational manner. The corollary of this myth is that the failure by Washington to bring reason to the problem on hand is merely a subjective matter --moral depravity combined with obtuseness. This is a reactionary position that suggests that imperialist capitalism is still progressive. Its conclusion can only be that communism is not, then, a historical necessity. Clearly this is a utopian perspective that sows illusions in the working class and thereby disarms it rendering it more vulnerable, in a sense, to further attack by the imperialist bourgeoisie. The point is that, in general, the character of the imperialist bourgeoisie's foreign relations with Afghanistan bear an necessary and not an optional character. In short the imperialist bourgeoisie lack freedom --the freedom to choose. If the specific policies followed by Washington are merely a matter of choice then the communist revolution does not constitute an historical necessity. President Bush does not follow specific policies because he is a nasty uncaring political figure. He follows them because of necessity. It is that points to the necessity of communism. It is this necessity that means capitalism is growing increasingly obsolescent while communists are correspondingly necessary. Being a communist is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of necessity. This is why there are always vacancies for communists. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Moderate Talibs
Many of the Taliban forces have been allowed to defect over the past weeks. Then others have been permitted to return to civilian life. In so far as this happening it is not been done in the interests of these people. It is being undertaken partly to isolate the hard core Talibs. It forms part of a conscious strategy to separate the so called elements away from the hard core. It is clear that the US plans have been well thought out and prepared. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Sharon and Arafat
The aggressive Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is linked to Israel's fear of the PFLP, certain elements within Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It reckons that the influence of the Arafat faction is slipping and will eventually be replaced by a more militantly radical leadership. Consequently the Palestinian Authority will acquire a correspondingly more radical character. This will strengthen strains on Israel diminishing its present overall level of control significantly. This new Palestinian will use its control of the PA as a platform from which mobilise domestic and international support for a more independent and stronger Palestinian state. Israel has anticipated any such development. It is struggling to force Arafat to crush this opposition now. In this way it hopes that if some form of the Oslo Accords is finally implemented the new PA will have a compliant character. There is the danger that Arafat may fall in the process of pursuing this aggressive strategy for Israel. Clearly there is an element of risk on the part of Israel here. The point is that it may believe it has little choice in the matter. The situation may prove worse if a more militant PA replaces the Arafat leadership anyway. It may also be of the view that there is a good chance that if Israel's strategy topples Arafat he may be replaced at this point in time by a leadership within Fatah that will have greater capability of crushing the more militant opposition. On the other hand Sharon may believe that it is better that Arafat goes sooner rather than later. It may have calculated that if he is replaced by a more militant leadership it is now better poised to crush it for once and for all. The Israeli government want the Arafat leadership to play the same overtly pro-imperialist role that is being played out by the Northern Alliance and Karzi in Afghanistan. The problem is that the Palestinian militants have been more successful in singing social roots within the Palestinian masses. This makes them more difficult to confront. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Duhalde Baptism of FIre
This could be accompanied by the transformation of dollar debts into pesos. That would stop widespread bankruptcies as most Argentines earn in the local currency but have debts -- such as mortgages -- in the greenback. The above forecast is entirely untrue. The pesoisation of the Argentinian economy will lead to super devaluation. This will lead to a massive cut back in the living standards of the working class. The outcome will be an enormous fall off demand for consumer commodities which means that many such companies will go to the wall. This in turn will lead to a corresponding fall off in demand in the industrial sector leading to the closure of companies that produce means of production commodities. Both these developments will lead to further unemployment and further falling demand. The companies that will survive, the largest and most competitive, will be able to enlarge their size and make themselves even more competitive. Super devaluation will lead to a fall in the price of exported commodities. This will make exporting firms more competitive. However this may generate further competitive devaluation. Countries, such as Brazil, may in turn further devalue their currencies generating further problems. The source of the Argentinian economic crisis is located within the production process. Yet the bourgeoisie engage in futile attempts to solve the crisis within the sphere of circulation --such as tinkering with currency. The principal condition for solving the profitability crisis facing Argentinian capital is deep recession. The reason as to why the recession has been so enduring --some say it is four years old- is because the recession has not bitten deep enough. The more thorough going the recession the better the recovery. However since Argentina is merely one unit in the world capitalist system there still only limits to the success of domestic economic depression as a solution to its problem. Since the Argentinian crisis is an expression of the sharpening contradictions within the global capitalist economic system the contradictions must be ultimately resolved at that level.Nationalism increasingly is highlighted as an obsolescent force against the increasing globalisation of capital. The problem facing the Argentinian bourgeoisie is that if it allows the recession to bite even deeper it may end up with no economy at all. The resistant working class may seize the power and taking the economy away from the bourgeoisie. Already the massive popular unrest expressed in workplaces and on the streets is evidence of the existence of the growing challenge of the working class. Then there is the fact that the Argentinian bourgeoisie is presently split as to what strategy to embark. The extent of the crisis facing capital is on such a scale that it has split the bourgeoisie. To successfully embark on a further offensive against the working class the capitalist class requires unity. As I intimated the deeper the economic depression the greater the chance of the conditions for economic recovery taking place. The deeper the economic depression the more individual capitals go to the wall. Consequently the bigger surviving capitals cannibalistically gobble up the capital of other individual capitalists forced out of business. The outcome is increased concentration and centralisation of capital. The process too entails the pushing of the price of labour power down --even below its value. Under these conditions there is a devalorisation of capital (constant and variable capital) sufficient to make capital profitable again. The outcome is rising accumulation of capital leading to economic boom. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11 By Patrick Martin 20 November 2001 Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. These reports include the prediction, made in July, that if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest. The Bush administration began its bombing strikes on the hapless, poverty-stricken country October 7, and ground attacks by US Special Forces began October 19. It is not an accident that these revelations have appeared overseas, rather than in the US. The ruling classes in these countries have their own economic and political interests to look after, which do not coincide, and in some cases directly clash, with the drive by the American ruling elite to seize control of oil-rich territory in Central Asia. The American media has conducted a systematic cover-up of the real economic and strategic interests that underlie the war against Afghanistan, in order to sustain the pretense that the war emerged overnight, full-blown, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11. The pundits for the American television networks and major daily newspapers celebrate the rapid military defeat of the Taliban regime as an unexpected stroke of good fortune. They distract public attention from the conclusion that any serious observer would be compelled to draw from the events of the past two weeks: that the speedy victory of the US-backed forces reveals careful planning and preparation by the American military, which must have begun well before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The official American myth is that everything changed on the day four airliners were hijacked and nearly 5,000 people murdered. The US military intervention in Afghanistan, by this account, was hastily improvised in less than a month. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a television interview November 18, actually claimed that only three weeks went into planning the military onslaught. This is only one of countless lies emanating from the Pentagon and White House about the war against Afghanistan. The truth is that the US intervention was planned in detail and carefully prepared long before the terrorist attacks provided the pretext for setting it in motion. If history had skipped over September 11, and the events of that day had never happened, it is very likely that the United States would have gone to war in Afghanistan anyway, and on much the same schedule. Afghanistan and the scramble for oil The United States ruling elite has been contemplating war in Central Asia for at least a decade. As long ago as 1991, following the defeat of Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, Newsweek magazine published an article headlined Operation Steppe Shield? It reported that the US military was preparing an operation in Kazakhstan modeled on the Operation Desert Shield deployment in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. If the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union provided the opportunity for the projection of American power into Central Asia, the discovery of vast oil and gas reserves provided the incentive. While the Caspian Sea coast of Azerbaijan (Baku) has been an oil production center for a century, it was only in the past decade that huge new reserves were discovered in the northwest Caspian (Kazakhstan) and in Turkmenistan, near the southwest Caspian. American oil companies have acquired rights to as much as 75 percent of the output of these new fields, and US government officials have hailed the Caspian and Central Asia as a potential alternative to dependence on oil from the unstable Persian Gulf region. American troops have followed in the wake of these contracts. US Special Forces began joint operations with Kazakhstan in 1997 and with Uzbekistan a year later, training for intervention especially in the mountainous southern region that includes Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan. The major problem in exploiting the energy riches of Central Asia is how to get the oil and gas from the landlocked region to the world market. US officials have opposed using either the Russian pipeline system or the easiest available land route, across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Instead, over the past decade, US oil companies and government officials have explored a series of alternative pipeline routeswest through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean; east through Kazakhstan and China to the Pacific; and, most relevant to the current crisis, south from Turkmenistan across western Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. The Afghanistan pipeline route was pushed by the US-based Unocal oil company, which engaged in intensive negotiations with the Taliban regime. These talks, however, ended
Chief Karzi is a puppet
Karzai and the interim government that he heads in Kabul is a puppet of US imperialism. Its specific interests, in so far as it has any, must be subordinated to the overall class interests of US imperialist capital. If Chief Karzai likes to eat chocolate doughnuts as opposed to jam doughnuts he may pursue such an interest passionately once it does not conflict with the overriding class interests of imperialist capital. Should his interests pose a challenge to the interests of Washington he will be sent packing as was the Taliban regime. The more important question is the future of this interim government. As things stand there is as yet no Afghanistan state. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: Washington's man in Afghanistan
of the support and resources it receives from its backers: Russia, Iran, India and belatedly the US. As with the Taliban when support is discontinued the opposition collapses. Incidentally the United Front and Karzi come from two distinctly different conditions. There is no organic connection between UF and Karzi. They have however, as I understand it, a connection with Rabbini. You entirely misunderstand the entire nature of the situation in Afghanistan. Conditions in Afghanistan are essentially a function of imperialist capital. They are a function of the outside powers that maintain these proxy indigenous forces in business. The relations of hostility that exist between the different indigenous elements within the borders of Afghanistan are subordinate to the international drama that finds concentrated expression in Afghanistan. It is the larger forces that is the central dynamic underlying the development of events in Afghanistan. James: This is reinforced by the fact that the US doesn't seem to give a damn about whether Afghanistan degenerates into another civil war or not, leaving the task and costs of nation building to the EU and UK. The Afghan leadership has a chance to exploit the competition between the EU/UK forces and the US. Karl: This is a misperception that you may have picked up from the commercial media. It, of course, contains no truth. The bombardment of Afghanistan by the US is a clear expression that Afghanistan exists within Washington's circle of concern. Washington seeks to stabilise Afghanistan for geopolitical and commercial reasons. Your argument suggests that European imperialism is more progressive than US imperialism. Curiously this is precisely UBL's position. He suggests that the US is more oppressive than the other imperialist countries. No of the individual form of imperialism is progressive. Progressivism is an ideology designed to deceive the working class. The Pentagon is reluctant to deploy its troops in Kabul in a patrolling capacity because it justifiably understand that these forces will be make beautiful targets for some rebellious Afghans. If the Pentagon can get Britain and France do provide foot patrols in Kabul then all the better for the US. It is not an absence of concern that explains their reluctance. Jim: In general, it's a mistake -- as some third worldists and dependistas do -- to think of leaders in the poor countries as merely puppets or compradors, ignoring the internal class and ethnic relations there. Karl: It is not a question of poor countries. It is a question of the imperialist oppression of the 3rd world. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Afghanistan: US Casualties Spiral
Institute of War and Peace 31-12-2001 Afghanistan: US Casualties Spiral Scores of US soldiers wounded in Afghanistan have been arriving at the Khanabad air base in southern Uzbekistan - far more than official reports suggest By Andrei Sukhozhilov in Khanabad (RCA No. 91, 7-Dec-01) Its approach announced by the repeated thud of its blade slicing the air, the twin-rotor US helicopter landed at the American military support base at Khanabad airport, in southern Uzbekistan. A staging post for special forces' and humanitarian missions into Afghanistan, the base has become busy with another task - receiving increasing numbers of Americans wounded in the fighting. Uzbek sources at Khanabad suggest that the real figures of US casualties are far higher than the Pentagon's official totals. This IWPR reporter, who smuggled himself onto the facility on December 2, witnessed soldiers scrambling to meet an incoming US helicopter. They lifted out five wounded men on stretchers and loaded them into waiting vehicles. Uzbek army personnel working at the air base said scores of US casualties have been arriving there. From November 25 to Decemeber 2, an Uzbek orderly working with American medical staff said he had witnessed the arrival of four to five US helicopters - carrying between them 10-15 American casualties - each day. The orderly said the US staff he was helping confirmed the casualties coming off the aircraft were Americans. Over the same period of time, the Pentagon has reported just five injured American servicemen, wounded in a friendly-fire incident during an operation to quell a prison riot near Mazar-e-Sharif. All were evacuated to Khanabad and then on to Germany. The Pentagon's official total US casualty toll for the Afghan conflict is eight dead and 41 injured. Asked about IWPR's findings, Pentagon spokesperson Lt Col. Catherine Abbott said, I cannot comment on what your reporter may have seen or something an orderly may have told him. As we verify reports, we make the information known. . . . . The numbers that I gave you are the latest that I have. The IWPR findings come amid US news media criticism of the Pentagon for allegedly restricting press coverage of American casualties. Both the Washington Post and the AP news agency protested Thursday at the military's apparent decision to prevent reporters based inside Afghanistan witnessing the transfer of troops injured when a B-52 bomb went astray in an air-strike on Kandahar. Three US special forces soldiers were killed and 19 wounded in the friendly-fire incident. This reporter managed to get into the heavily guarded Khanabad facility with a group of parents visiting children serving in an Uzbek military unit based at the airport. Uzbek military staff at the base told IWPR that it is increasingly being used as a springboard for humanitarian missions and special forces' raids into Afghanistan. They say the former take place during the day and the latter at night. At the same time, the airport has been receiving growing numbers of casualties. The Uzbek sources say the hospital there - comprising one floor of a building and four large canvas tents - was full of wounded US soldiers. They said more tents were going to be erected to cope with the influx of casualties. The Uzbek orderly working with American troops transferring wounded comrades from helicopters said the casualties suffered shrapnel and bullet wounds to the arms, leg and head. The airport sources could not confirm how many incoming casualties had died. One Uzbek soldier said that since October 15 he had helped US servicemen load 20 body bags onto American transport planes. But he could not confirm whether they were dead US soldiers. But there is other evidence of American fatalities. One Uzbek officer said US soldiers had told him that four of their comrades had died of their wounds on December 1 while being airlifted to Khanabad. An Uzbek pilot spoke of the death last week of an American soldier who he had become friendly with while he was on the base. The US serviceman, he said, had died in the attempt to end the prison riot on the outskirts of Mazar-e-Sharif two weeks ago. A lot of American troops died there - it was a real battle, the pilot said. Uzbek army personnel say the atmosphere on the base has changed distinctly in the last week or so. They say that in October when the Americans began deploying at the airport, they were gung-ho, telling their Uzbek counterparts that it would take no more than a month and a half to defeat the Taleban and al-Qaeda. While the Taleban appear to be on their last legs, al-Qaeda fighters continue to resist in mountain redoubts, with some US servicemen at Khanabad now resigned to a long haul. Uzbek military staff say frustration at this is noticeable. They say they have witnessed growing tensions among American troops, often overhearing arguments and shouting matches. Andrei Sukhozhilov is the pseudonym for journalist based in
Re Washington's man to be installed as Afghan prime minister
Karl: Karzai's existence as the leading figure in the interim government is based on the military invasion of Afghanistan by imperialism. His present political existence has its social base in Washington. His social base is not the Afghanistani masses which is why he makes for a fragile political figure. His current policies are evidence of this --support for continued US air strikes and indefinite presence of imperialist armed forces in Afghanistan. To say, as you do, that he makes a better choice than Rabbani is neither here nor there. Essentially there is no political difference between either of them. Both of these figures have had their power enlarged on the basis of US aggression. The industrial working class in Afghanistan must now be minuscule and of little economic and political significance. Even the more professional middle class elements must be correspondingly minuscule due to the economic and political conditions obtaining in the country over the last 20 years or so. It is clear that the way forward for the Afghan masses must lie in the regional context: a federation of workers' communities based on regional social revolution. To suggest under present conditions that a revolutionary political perspective peculiar to Afghanistan is possible is to live under a delusion. The working class within Pakistan, India, Central Asia and Russia will determine the Afghan revolution --not Afghanistan. Imperialism over the years has done a good job in preventing the economic and political development of Afghanistan involving the formation of a significant industrial working class and corresponding middle class. Such a working class would have provided a positive social dynamic. Now there is a conspicuous absence of any such dynamic in Afghanistan. These abject conditions render the situation there even more disastrous. In many ways the Pol Pot like) elimination of the working and professional middle class by the imperialist bourgeoisie, over the years, has led to a situation that is now generating serious problems for imperialism's own class interests. Not unrelated to this is the fact that the absence of a modern working class within Afghanistan means that there are virtually no imperialist valorisation opportunities there (aside from heroin production and smuggling). In Afghanistan, at the present, the biggest value generator is illegal commercial activity and the production of the commodity heroin. Neither of these economic forms are conducive to the creation of a modern working class. Indeed the entire character of Afghanistan is in many ways determined by these peculiar economic conditions. Imperialism has proven itself so obsolescent that it is incapable of replacing these economic conditions with conditions that undermine its present social landscape. It is this imperialist limitation that primarily helps explain why Washington has resorted to military force. US imperialism's use of military force is not an index of its strength but of its weakness. Now the success of the Pentagon in crushing the Taliban regime may appear as a victory to the short sighted Bush administration. However the demise of the Taliban has led to further regional destabilisation which is responsible for the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The regional balance of power has been disturbed.Given the fragile social conditions obtaining in Pakistan the collapse of this state is a distinct possibility. Such a dramatic development further adds to regional instability the consequences of which are unpredictable under conditions of growing global recession. The Bush administration's short term gun boat diplomacy may provide the appearance of victory and success while, in a sense, the essence of its policies are the very opposite. The Bush administration, unlike the Clinton administration, is conspicuously lacking a long term strategic conception. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ PS: James I have forwarded a copy of this posting to the Pen-l list since I have been apparently missing my posts to the list and any relevant replies. --- James: while the article below is informative, I think it's a mistake to see Karzai as a puppet. He's under US influence, no doubt about it, but to the extent that he's merely a puppet, he's not going to last. (He'll be like one of those short-lived South Vietnamese generals during the 1960s.) Though the US did its thing with civilian-killing strategic bombing and special ops troops, those don't win a war or create a peace. That has to be done with troops on the ground, in this case, the Northern Alliance and other non-Taliban forces. That gives those forces a lot of influence in determining the nature of the peace (or civil war) that results. In any case, the US elite doesn't seem to give a damn about the details in Afghanistan _per se_. All they want is to make sure it's a safe
Taliban: What prompted Bamiyan?
Following may be of interest Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Asia Source Special Report Taliban: What prompted Bamiyan? March 28, 2001 On February 26, 2001, Mullah Mohammad Omar, Afghanistan's ruling Taliban leader, ordered the destruction of all statues in the country, including ancient pre-Islamic figures. Thereafter, despite international pressure, the Taliban began the demolition of thousands of artifacts, including all the statues in the National Museum in Kabul and the two Buddha statues in Bamiyan, the latter of which, according to UNESCO, constituted one of the most important sites of Buddhist art in the world. The statues, 38 and 53 meters tall, carved into a mountainside in central Afghanistan, were built by the flourishing Buddhist Kushan dynasty, which had grown rich from its strategic position on the Silk Road between China and Rome. Once Islam came to the Hindu Kush, Bamiyan fell into neglect, but nevertheless survived (despite some damage inflicted by Aurangzeb in the 17th century, as well as by the French and the British in the early 20th century). The destruction of these heritage sites has raised a number of questions, not least why it is that Mohammad Omar reversed his previous edict (that all such monuments were to be preserved) at this time. In fact when the Taliban captured Bamiyan three years ago, and a local commander fired a rocket at the biggest statue, he was severely reprimanded. Subsequently, a year or so later, Mullah Omar decreed specifically that the Buddhas were to be protected. The international community has unanimously expressed dismay and outrage at the Taliban's destruction of this part of Afghanistan's cultural heritage. Some commentators have suggested that the most useful way of looking at this issue, and in particular this seemingly inexplicable change of heart on the part of Mullah Mohammad Omar, is to focus on a number of factors -- political, social and economic -- which may have contributed to this decision. First among these factors is the new range of UN sanctions imposed in December 2000, sanctions which were criticized and opposed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, but which were nevertheless passed by the Security Council on the initiative of the United States and Russia. The Pakistani Foreign Minister commented that were these sanctions to be imposed, the world would witness one of the greatest human tragedies of our times. The second, and related, factor is the humanitarian crisis looming in Afghanistan, the scale of which is truly formidable. According to the UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief, Kenzo Oshima, at least 1 million Afghans are at risk of famine. The worst drought in memory combined with the devastating effects of over 20 years of war, have forced over 700,000 Afghans in the past year alone to abandon their homes; the Afghans, according to the UNHCR, constitute the largest single refugee group in the world. Third, according to a Taliban envoy recently in the United States, the destruction of the statues was primarily the result of an offer made by a visiting delegation of mostly European envoys and a representative of UNESCO of substantial sums of money to protect the Buddhas at a time when little attention (much less financial aid) was being given to the humanitarian crisis there. As Sayed Rahmatullah Hashimi said: If they can destroy our future and kill our children with sanctions, who gives them the right to talk about our heritage? Fourth, ostensibly in reaction to the threat of further sanctions in 2000, Mullah Omar banned poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. The UN Drug Control Program, as a result of a reduction in aid led by the United States, subsequently terminated their Alternative Development project aimed at helping the former poppy growers find other sources of income. These poppy growers were thus left without any means of livelihood, and the Taliban concluded from this that whatever efforts they would make to accommodate the demands of the international community were likely to be spurned. Five, despite the fact that the Taliban control over 90 per cent of the country, that it has been five years since the they took control of Kabul, the UN still allows the former Afghan president, Burhanuddin Rabbani, to occupy the Afghanistan seat at the UN, and only three states (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) have recognized the Taliban as their country's legitimate government. Some commentators have suggested that this has only served to alienate them further from the international community and make them more intransigent vis-à-vis any proposed concessions to the West. Finally, there has also been some speculation that a combination of the above factors (as well as the emphasis still placed on the extradition of Osama Bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the bombing
Afghan and Karzai
Karl: Karzai's existence as the leading figure in the interim government is based on the military invasion of Afghanistan by imperialism. His present political existence has its social base in Washington. His social base is not the Afghanistani masses which is why he makes for a fragile political figure. His current policies are evidence of this --support for continued US air strikes and indefinite presence of imperialist armed forces in Afghanistan. To say, as you do, that he makes a better choice than Rabbani is neither here nor there. Essentially there is no political difference between either of them. Both of these figures have had their power enlarged on the basis of US aggression. The industrial working class in Afghanistan must now be minuscule and of little economic and political significance. Even the more professional middle class elements must be correspondingly minuscule due to the economic and political conditions obtaining in the country over the last 20 years or so. It is clear that the way forward for the Afghan masses must lie in the regional context: a federation of workers' communities based on regional social revolution. To suggest under present conditions that a revolutionary political perspective peculiar to Afghanistan is possible is to live under a delusion. The working class within Pakistan, India, Central Asia and Russia will determine the Afghan revolution --not Afghanistan. Imperialism over the years has done a good job in preventing the economic and political development of Afghanistan involving the formation of a significant industrial working class and corresponding middle class. Such a working class would have provided a positive social dynamic. Now there is a conspicuous absence of any such dynamic in Afghanistan. These abject conditions render the situation there even more disastrous. In many ways the Pol Pot like) elimination of the working and professional middle class by the imperialist bourgeoisie, over the years, has led to a situation that is now generating serious problems for imperialism's own class interests. Not unrelated to this is the fact that the absence of a modern working class within Afghanistan means that there are virtually no imperialist valorisation opportunities there (aside from heroin production and smuggling). In Afghanistan, at the present, the biggest value generator is illegal commercial activity and the production of the commodity heroin. Neither of these economic forms are conducive to the creation of a modern working class. Indeed the entire character of Afghanistan is in many ways determined by these peculiar economic conditions. Imperialism has proven itself so obsolescent that it is incapable of replacing these economic conditions with conditions that undermine its present social landscape. It is this imperialist limitation that primarily helps explain why Washington has resorted to military force. US imperialism's use of military force is not an index of its strength but of its weakness. Now the success of the Pentagon in crushing the Taliban regime may appear as a victory to the short sighted Bush administration. However the demise of the Taliban has led to further regional destabilisation which is responsible for the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The regional balance of power has been disturbed.Given the fragile social conditions obtaining in Pakistan the collapse of this state is a distinct possibility. Such a dramatic development further adds to regional instability the consequences of which are unpredictable under conditions of growing global recession. The Bush administration's short term gun boat diplomacy may provide the appearance of victory and success while, in a sense, the essence of its policies are the very opposite. The Bush administration, unlike the Clinton administration, is conspicuously lacking a long term strategic conception. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Re: A Too Easy Victory - Uri Avneri
Karl: Reg Whitaker comments on the US attack on Afghanistan smack of blatant partisan subjectivity that forms part of the culture of reformism: To argue that this victory was too easy suggests that the author of this piece would have been happier had the so called war in Afghanistan been a less easy victory for Washington. Politics is to be reduced to the subjective abstract taxonomy of too easy, less easy and difficult. Of course Washington's victory was going to be too easy. To conclude that Washington has untrammelled power because of the Afghanistan war's specific character is fantasy at its crudest and most unimaginative. If Washington was to choose to go to war against Bermuda, lets assume it is an independent sovereign state, we would be rather surprised that its victory turned out to be too easy. We would not expect any objective analyst to conclude that the easy victory was evidence of untrammelled US power. Evidence of untrammelled power is when the US has a too easy victory over a country such as France or the UK. Washington was free to go to war against Afghanistan when it was sure that no major, nor even minor power, would assist the Taliban regime. Washington's victory was a pseudo victory. The fact that Washington was forced to form the so called global coalition is, if anything, evidence of the limits of US power. To crush a fragile state Washington was forced to summon up vast resources and win the support of global capitalism in the form of a grand coalition is, if anything, clear evidence of its weakness. That a fragile power such as the Taliban was cheeky enough to, in a sense, challenge Washington is evidence of the limits of Washington's power. The fact that the WTC and Pentagon was attacked is a reflection of the growing sharpness of capitalist contradictions and the limits of American power. The fact that the most powerful capitalist state in the world was forced to go to war against the puny reactionary Taliban regime is evidence of the extent to which the contradictions of capitalism have been growing in intensity. The fact that Washington was forced to go to war against such a minuscule regime is irrefutable evidence of the limits of American power. The actions of the Bush administration are mistakenly presented in the context of choice. It had no choice. It was forced to go to war. The absence of choice or freedom is evidence of its limits and the degree to which the contradictions within US imperialism have been becoming increasingly uncontrollable. The growing problem facing Washington is that increasingly it cannot seek to solve many problems without resorting to military action. The growing obsolescence of capitalism increasingly renders military action the only option. The reformist character of the anti-war movement (and commentators such as Tariq Ali) is that they present the war as the product of choice -even moral choice. They suggest that there is such a beast as a rational benevolent imperialism that behaves in a way that largely serves the interests of people in general --independent of class. This reflects itself in the strategy of the anti-war movement and explains how it collapsed so ignominiously. The Taliban is dead! Long live the Taliban! Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Global Communist Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Reg: Because this victory was too easy. Much easier than many (myself included) thought possible. A large country has been conquered virtually without sacrificing the life of a single American soldier in battle. The tribal chiefs were bought with money and changed sides. Opposition was shattered by giant bombers, riding high in the sky, nearly out of eyesight, dropping enormous bombs, more powerful than any of those used against the Nazis in World War II. At no time in history has any state had such untrammelled power. Even the Roman Empire, at its zenith, did not come close to it. The Romans always had a rival power to contend with - Persia. In order to achieve their victories, they had to send the legions and sacrifice human lives on far-away battlefields. From time to time they suffered terrible defeats. No victory came easily, and certainly not cheaply. By contrast, the United States is now the only great power on earth. No other state comes close to it, no military or economic power can compete with it. From the Afghan experience they can draw the conclusion that there is no need anymore to send soldiers anywhere - the bombers can crush any opposition with sophisticated bombs...
Washington's man to be installed as Afghan prime minister
intelligence became obvious. But his close relationship with the Taliban continued for a number of years. He met with Mullah Omar on a number of occasions and in 1996 was offered the post of the Taliban's UN representative, which he politely declined. It may appear odd that the US should chose someone with close links to the Taliban as their puppet in Kabul. But the paradox is more apparent than real. In the mid-1990s, Washington tacitly supported the Taliban, which was heavily backed, financially and militarily, by two close US allies-Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The US has always officially rejected allegations that it provided direct support to the Taliban but the involvement of Karzai in providing money and arms to Omar and his followers once again raises the question. He told author Ahmed Rashid: I gave the Taliban $US50,000 to help run their movement and then handed over to them a large cache of weapons I had hidden away. The US only openly turned on the Taliban in 1998 after the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, allegedly by Osama bin Laden, and the collapse of plans by US oil giant Unocal to build a gas pipeline through southern Afghanistan from Turkmenistan. Karzai broke with the Taliban leadership at the same time and began to organise against them. He and his brothers blame the assassination of their father, Abdul Ahad Karzai, on the Taliban. Rumsfeld met with Karzai and other Afghan leaders last weekend during a brief stopover in Afghanistan. He bluntly reinforced US opposition to any dealings with the top Taliban leaders, warning: To the extent that we find that people who aspire to high office or high position in Afghanistan have been involved in preventing us from getting our hands on people who are responsible for what's gone on in Afghanistan [they] will find the United States not terribly friendly to their aspirations. The Karzai administration to be inaugurated today is to hold office for six months while a loya jirga or tribal assembly is convened to select a transitional administration. Some two and a half years down the track, according to the UN blueprint, Afghanistan will have a new constitution and national elections. There are already signs, however, that the new regime, patched together from rival ethnic, tribal and religious groups and militia, will be highly unstable. Former president Rabbani is due to speak at the inauguration today. In the course of the Bonn meeting, Rabbani was pushed aside by other Northern Alliance figures who took the key ministerial posts of defence, foreign affairs and interior. Just last week he lashed out at the Bonn agreement, describing it as a humiliation of the nation, and accused foreign powers of imposing an unrepresentative government on Afghanistan. Also present will be about 80 British marines, who will be assisting in security arrangements for the ceremony. They are the advance guard of the British-led ISAF of between 3,000 and 5,000 troops, which will be based in Kabul. The mandate for the troops was only agreed at the UN Security Council on Thursday after sharp divisions opened up between the US and Europe over its command structure. The ISAF is crucial for Karzai, who has no significant militia of his own and faced the prospect of ruling from a capital controlled by rival Northern Alliance troops. The establishment of an international military force in Kabul has been strongly resisted by Northern Alliance militia commander Mohammad Fahim, who will become the new defence minister. He has insisted that Afghanis can take care of their own security and called for any peace-keeping force to be limited to less than 1,000 soldiers. The US is no doubt aware that there is very little holding together the new Afghan administration-other than the threats and financial bribes of the major powers. That is why, in a highly unstable situation, Washington made sure that its man holds the top job in the regime. Published by WSWS Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Global Communist Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Afghan facts?
Peter Symonds: A Western diplomat confirmed this week that delegates in Bonn chose a different leader, Abdul Sattar Sirat, to head the interim government. Pressure from American and United Nations officials resulted in the naming of Mr Karzai and the selection of ministerial positions. 'The result is that a lot of people feel that Karzai is a US imposition, ' the diplomat said. 'Depending on how he plays his cards, that could be a problem' Karl: If this report is reliable we get a glimpse of the degree to which this interim government in Afghanistan is a stooge of imperialism. Symonds reports too that the Security Council determined the overall structure of the government too. Figures for the number of Taliban POWs are being given as at about 7000. However these figures may not be reliable as they are provided by a US source and not by the Red Cross or some more independent body. It must be remembered that the figures for the WTC were conveniently exaggerated to double what they were. There are still no estimates as to the number of casualties suffered by the Taliban and the Opposition forces. As I have said before the so called war in Afghanistan has been rather extraordinary. The public are informed that there had been fierce fighting. Yet we have almost no knowledge of the casualties. In a sense ways we don't really know who this war. Part of the problem is the role played by the commercial print and broadcasting media. It simply follows the US line largely failing to engage in any independent investigation or reporting of its own --despite its greater resources. Even journalists such as Pilger and Fisk merely engage in commentary. They don't engage in any independent investigation. Consequently there liberal outpourings don't really amount to much in a context in which facts are king. An anti war campaign must make the demand for the facts a key demand in its campaign. - PS Sonia Shah wrote: While outrage over the Taleban's requirement that Afghan women wear a head-to-toe veil continues, a new comprehensive study shows that the majority of Afghan women consider the Taleban's dress codes a non-issue, and many choose to wear the burqa or chadari whether the Taleban decrees it or not. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Global Communist Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Extraordianry War
The entire war in Afghanistan has had an extraordinary character. The Taliban, we are told, has been crushed. Yet we were told that they had a military force in the region of 35, 000 soldiers (correct me if I am wrong). Where are these 35, soldiers. If the Taliban forces have been defeated then there must be evidence to show this --thousands of dead and wounded soldiers and thousands of prisoners of war. If the thousands of Bin Laden's force, that we were told existed, have been defeated then hundreds of them must be dead or wounded and hundreds of them held as prisoners of war. Yet, we are led to believe, the figures are not at all that high. Professional (bourgeois) journalism is conspicuously failing to ask these challenging questions let alone investigate the matter. Now we are being told that Mullah Omar and Bin Laden are neither dead nor captured. Indeed it would seem that much, if not most, of the entire top leadership of the Taliban and Bin Laden's forces have escaped death and capture. This again is rather extraordinary. Perhaps in this secret war Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are dead. Perhaps this is not being divulged to the world because of the possible reaction among the Muslim masses to such news. Perhaps the delay in releasing such information is to avoid their being viewed as martyrs. The point is that we just don't know. We just don't know what has been happening in Afghanistan. The commercial media is the only with the necessary resources to seriously attempt to follow these matters up. Yet it has conspicuously failed to do so. Even its opinion columnists have been in the main mediocre and uninspiring in their analysis. The media has been very cooperative with Washington and London. It is also extraordinary that we are told there has been fierce fighting on the part of Bin Laden's forces at Tora Bora. Yet if this is true how is it that these fierce warriors have apparently fail to kill and wound significant numbers of the enemy? How is it if there have been US and UK special forces engaged with Bin Laden's forces that these special forces suffered no casualties? Then these sophisticated cave complex at Tora Bora, we were told, contained all kinds of resources. We were almost led to believe they were furnished with the latest fittings from Harrods. Yet the reports coming in don't seem to suggest such previously reported complexity and sophistication. Again the press may have been misinforming its audience. Such disinformation renders it even more difficult to understand what is going. Indeed it is quite treacherous when the press, without any evidence, makes suggestions that are entirely unfounded. This is an all the more serious matter when it acquires a systematic character. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Global Communist Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Re: Tariq Ali Interview (David Barsamian) - The Progressive
Ali: It's somehow as if history has become too subversive. The past has too much knowledge embedded in it, and therefore it's best to forget it and start anew. But as everyone is discovering, you can't do this to history; it refuses to go away. If you try to suppress it, re-emerges in horrific fashion. That's essentially what's been going on. Karl Carlile: Tariq Ali, in his position on Afghanistan as demonstrates the limitations faced by the politics of reformism. He suggests that history is an objective process that exists independently of humanity. For him it is not people that make history but history that makes people. This is how he can claim that with history if you try to suppress it, it re-emerges in horrific fashion. That's essentially what's been going on. In the next breath he zig zags from the above crass objectivism to an equally crass subjectivism in which he suggests that history can be ignored by classes: But the reason they can get away with it is that history has been totally downplayed. Adding to this subjectivism is his view that it is the US media that has been the cause of the Gulf and Afghanistan wars. Tariq Ali: If you see what passes as the news on the networks in the United States, there's virtually no coverage of the rest of the world, not even of neighbouring countries like Mexico or neighbouring continents like Latin America. It's essentially a very provincial culture, and that breeds ignorance. This ignorance is very useful in times of war because you can whip up a rapid rage in ill-informed populations and go to war against almost any country. That is a very frightening process. Karl Carlile: Now according to Tariq history and class consciousness have been negated by the power of television. The subjective actions of the US bourgeoisie can wipe out both history and class consciousness. What Tariq cannot understand is that the absence of class consciousness of the US working class together with Washington's ability to successfully attack Afghanistan has its cause in a much more complicated set of conditions. These conditions entail both objective and subjective ingredients. Ali: ...previous wars were genuinely fought by coalition. The United States was the dominant power in these coalitions, but it had to get other people on its side. In both the Gulf War and in Kosovo, the U.S. had to get the agreement of other people in these alliances before it moved forward. The war in Afghanistan, the first war of the twenty-first century, shows the United States doing what it wants to do, not caring about who it antagonizes, not caring about the effects on neighbouring regions. Karl Calile: So what! It makes no essential difference whether US imperialism fights wars in or out of coalition. They are still imperialist wars. They still constitute a form of brutal oppression. They are still violently oppressive events. The implication on Tariq's part is that, in some way, the wars fought by the US in genuine coalition with other imperialist powers are in some way less nasty than US go it alone policy. This view ties in with the political environment found in Tariq's previous home in the Pabloite International Marxist Group. Anyway even here is facts are wrong. The Vietnam war was primarily fought by US imperialism independently of any other imperialist power. Tariq Ali: U.S. is telling the Northern Alliance to kill Taliban prisoners. It's totally a breach of all the known conventions of war. Western television networks aren't showing this, but Arab networks are showing how prisoners are being killed and what's being done to them. Instead, we're shown scenes that are deliberately created for the West!ern media: a few women without the veil, a woman reading the news on Kabul television, and 150 people cheering. Karl Carlile: There is nothing unusual about this. Imperialism has always engaged in these practices. The bourgeois media is designed to deceive the masses. Again says this as if there was some pristine time under imperialism when there was more nobility displayed by good old fashioned imperialism. Again Tariq Pabloist reformism imprisons his conception of imperialist reality. He cannot see that it imperialism's nature to be nasty towards the masses. If it wasn't it would not be imperialism. It is almost as if Tariq wants to nostalgically live in the world of the sixties with its flower power and its many other utopian illusions. Tariq Ali: All these wars are similar in the way ideology is being used. It's the ideology of so-called humanitarian intervention. We don't want to do this, but we're doing this for the sake of the people who live there. This is, of course, a terrible sleight of hand because all sorts of people live there, and, by and large, they do it to help one faction and not the other. In the case of Afghanistan, they didn't even make that pretence. It was essentially a crude war of revenge designed largely to appease the U.S. public. And the United States
Taliban screwed it up
A rushed posting. It is clear that the US just bombed and bombed to crush the Taliban and what is Binnie's crew. The US military have the distinction of providing further proof that with the air technology together with all the necessary accessories it is possible to bomb an enemy to pieces. The Taliban and friends are like the injuns fighting the whiteman's superior technology with bows and arrows --capitalist technology against stone age technology. We only have to read Engels to understand the significance of technology and economics with regard to warfare. It the crushing of the Taliban adds up to a rather pathetic and, in a sense, tragic picture. The most pathetic aspect to it all is the complete naiveté of both the Taliban and its friends. They entirely miscalculated --to say the least. Here Ferguson from Proyect Stalinist mailing list was proven completely off the mark. In one of his posting he suggested that Afghanistan looked like it was to be the location where the US was to experience serious difficulty. As with his views on the Provos and the national question in relation to Ireland he has been completely off the mark. I pointed out before things really got going in postings to mailing lists that the Taliban would be crushed. I indicated that the Pentagon would engage in carpet bombing and even the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed Afghanistan has been used by the Pentagon as a military lab. I also suggested that the best strategy that the Taliban could adopt is withdrawal from the cities and retreat to the mountains. They did not do this. If anything they only did under retreat. I was suggesting that they simply withdraw from the cities before any air assaults took place. Instead they insisted on maintaining conventional positions of defence. This meant that under conditions of positional war they were goners against the might of the US. Had they strategically retreated to the mountains their forces and morale would have been conserved. They should have left plants or moles within the cities, towns and villages. These moles would have been of had a military and political aspect. The military element would have engaged in urban guerrilla warfare within these centres. They would have melted into the urban population even vigorously applauding the entry of the Northern Alliance into Kabul. This would have added to their disguise. Then they could gather intelligence and strike where appropriate. The political aspect of the movement would have organised and mobilised the Afghan masses against imperialist oppression. Mobilisation against unemployment, lack of housing, food etc. In this way it would have built up popular support against imperialism and its puppets. Such a strategy would have been formulated well in advance. Instead they were forced to ignominiously retreat under conditions in which they had suffered serious injury and demoralisation. But they were incapable of listening to me. This was not a subjective problem. It is a result of the reactionary backward character of the Taliban and its Binnie allies. The Taliban, when it got down to it, were politically, militarily and strategically bankrupt. Once Musharraf went abroad the game was up for the Taliban. Musharraf would have not gone on tour of the power centres if he was not already guaranteed the safety of his authority. Clearly his going abroad was evidence that he had thrown in his lot with the Americans. The Taliban were a product of the Pakistani state. Consequently it was doomed once the plug was pulled on it by the Pakistani state. In the same way the Northern Alliance is a proxy force for imperialism. Without imperialism it could get nowhere. These force are pathetically reactionary forces that count for nothing. Their master is imperialism. All this romantic bullshit about the great Afghan fighters makes no sense. At most it is propaganda put about by imperialism to artificially puff the enemy up. In this way US imperialism's target is made to look more formidable than it really is. This means that when it triumphs it looks as if has been faced with a serious challenge. The US attack on Afghanistan could be likened to a US attack on Ireland. What chance would Ireland have against such an onslaught. Even Ireland w3ould stand a better chance of resisting than Afghanistan.
Explorer and virus
Cannot open up internet explorer. Is this a result of a virus and if so how do I sort it out. Karl
Front line and Afghan
There is an almost complete blackout on the situation in the Kandahar area. No longer are we even getting the coverage we got before the fall of Kabul and Mazar e Sharif. This is no accident. No tv images with the on the front journalists. No more are our journalists on the fron line. Mainstream journalism has revealed its bankrupt hack like nature. Few journalists have shown any flare for the war in terms of investigation and analysis. Why is it that we are not being told what is going on. Why is it that journalists refuse to raise issues and ask questions? Why dont they tell us why they are not reporting from the front line etc. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Mazar-i- Sharif atrocity
Much of the reformist left rants on about the breaking of the Geneva conventions concerning the recent brutal events at the fort at Mazar-i-Sharif. It suggests that the blame for the brutal atrocity lies with the US and Northern Alliance forces. These protestations are nothing less than the rantings of an ideologically and politically bankrupt reformist left that has significantly failed to mount an effective opposition to the Afghan war. It is clear that in a war of this nature, the war in Afghanistan, the conditions for atrocities of one sort or another exist. Indeed the entire war is an atrocity. The only way to prevent such atrocity is by abolishing the conditions responsible for all atrocity --capitalism. The slaughter at Mazar-i-Sharif is no more nor less significant than any of the other killings by US and Northern Alliance forces. It is the character of the war that must be highlighted --its imperialist character-- not this or that slaughter. In a war, such as this one, one kind of slaughter is not any more atrocious than another. To suggest otherwise is to promote reformism and thereby imperialism. Such bourgeois politics suggests that imperialism has a progressive character. It logically follows, then, that its wars can be fought in a clean, rational and humane way. It suggests that wars for which imperialism is responsible are more acceptable, even progressive (the Hitchens and Halliday thesis), if they fulfil certain conditions. The left that expresses outrage at particular brutality is the left that is using the very same hypocritical humanitarianism that has been used by the imperialist bourgeoisie. The commission of brutality has been exploited by imperialism as a pretext for attacking regimes such as the Iraqi and Serbian ones. Imperialist wars, by their very class nature, contain an inherently brutality. This inherent brutality assumes different forms under different circumstances. The inherent brutality is a characteristic of the inherent brutality of imperialist capitalism whether in the form of exploitation, famine, war etc. All these forms of brutality are inherently interrelated. The communist position, then, is opposition to the imperialist war in Afghanistan by promoting popular opposition to the capitalism that is responsible for it. In the Afghan war communists cannot consider victory by either side as a victory or defeat for imperialism. Is not the concern of communists as to who wins the war since any victory is essentially a victory for imperialism. The only real defeat is success in opposing the war that culminates in the abolition of capitalism. The only real victory is the degree to which communism succeeds in mounting principled opposition to the war that leads to the emergence class consciousness among the working class that culminates in social revolution. There is a false view among sections of reformism that a victory for US and Northern Alliance forces against the Taliban will further strengthen the self confidence of US imperialism. Such a view misunderstands the entire nature of capitalism and lends support to the view that some capitalist wars are more progressive than others. Whether the Taliban or the Northern Alliance wins the war is essentially irrelevant since only capitalism can win the war. US forces can only be defeated in the Afghan war when the working class forces an end to such wars by overthrowing American capitalism. Revolution, then, is the only condition for the defeat of US forces. The Taliban regime is essentially no more nor less reactionary than the Northern Alliance. Both sides are reactionary anti-working class products of imperialism. They are forces than lack any real independence. As verified by events they can only exist on the basis of imperialist support. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Downturn and stats
Admissions that the Fed had underestimated the extent of the downturn, was not clear on why its policies had not worked and essentially did not have a clue on the currency movement, would in themselves have been a clear enough indication of the atmosphere of fear and bewilderment surrounding financial authorities. As with the war in Afghanistan the information provided by the bourgeoisie concerning economics have to be evaluated with caution. The problem is that even then it is difficult to make a more objective evaluation as to economic slumps and their specifics. This is because there is an ideological, propagandistic and even deliberately deceptive character to the facts, figures and estimate provide by the capitalist state and its agencies. The economic information provided by the bourgeois state and its associate economic agencies tightly control the information made public. Even then it is often coded. The extent of economic upturns and downturns can be deliberately exaggerated to serve the economic and even political interests of capitalism. By exaggerating the extent of an economic downturn the climate can be created to justify decreases in state social spending, increases in military spending, restrictions in industrial relations and cut back in wages. Consequently it is necessary that communists acquire the resources to obtain information rather than exist in a relationship of total dependence to the bourgeoisie for it. Clearly there is a limit as to the information that can be accessed independently of the capitalist state and class. Since the bourgeoisie own society it is correspondingly the source and controller of information. Consequently it exercises strict control over the information made public together with the way it is made public. The working class must make a campaign to force information from the bourgeoisie part of the class struggle. This means fighting for calls for workers' control over information and the way it is made public. Many elements within the non-communist left tend to unquestioningly accept the statistics and many other facts (factoids) provided by the bourgeois state and its related agencies. Again this is just one more indication of the bourgeois character of this reformist left. Perhaps the occurrence and reaction to the attack on the WTC is a response to the degree to which economic conditions have deteriorated. The CIA is the only institution that has the real intelligence concerning these and other matters. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Afghanistan and Bonn
None of the delegates attending the Bonn circus democratically represent the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not represent the people of Afghanistan but neither does the NA, the king nor these so called tribal chiefs. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
CIA and Taliban
. For instance we still have not got much of a clue as what the scale of casualties have been among the Taliban forces. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Invisible War
to Afghanistan, is largely as Islamic as Taliban. For all the talk about the emancipation of women with Taliban out of the way only men were able to attend the cinema in Kabul the other day. Bourgeois journalism has been so impoverished as to have failed to find out what, if any, policy differences exist between the different indigenous forces. Certainly they all share the common feature of being the foot soldiers of imperialist states. It seems that rather than a war there has been a well organised coup engineered by the CIA against the Taliban regime. It would seem that the defections and surrenders, in many cases, were planned in advance. In this way, as with Milosevic, power was transferred by a virtual palace coup from within its own ranks to the Northern Alliance. The fact that the Taliban leadership did not see this coming is a measure, it would seem, of their cretinism. They just dont seem to have a clue as to what is going on. But as I have said there is no essential difference between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. Consequently politically, in a sense, there has been no winner nor looser. Much of the anti-war left go on about the fact that bombing does not achieve anything except misery. It is not the job of communists to advise capitalists as to how best to wage a war or defeat an enemy. The point is bombs do make a difference. The devastation caused to Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the WW2 accelerated Japans surrender. Please forgive this rough draft form. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Butchers
If reports coming in are true it is clear that the United Front intend to butcher the non-Afghan Taliban to death in Konduz after the Afghan Taliban defect --assuming that they defect. Clearly this represents, in bourgeois terms, a crime against humanity. It is obvious that the Bush administration support and perhaps even encourage such action. Yet the mainstream or bourgeois media are so quiet about the significance of this. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Debray and Guevara
A programme broadcast on Irish tv implies that it was Regis Debray that betrayed Che Guevara and not the artist. We see a tv team trying to interview a very uncomfortable Debray over the issue. He was quite uncooperative to say the least. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Rabbini and OBL
Ossam Bin Laden entered Afghanistan in response to an invitation by Rabbini --not the Taliban. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Taliban retreats
A study of the history of the Taliban with regard to its take over of most of Afghanistan will show that it had not demonstrated any particular skill on the battlefield. The Taliban had made many of its gains as a result of defections due to sizable payments to the appropriate commanders or due switching sides so as to be on the winning side. The Taliban when it did do battle suffered some serious blows. It is clear that this process has been reversed. The significant defections away from the Taliban helps explain much of the gains from those that now oppose them. Those among the Taliban that are putting up a fierce and tenactious resistance are more than likely the core of the Taliban and OBL's armed group. Indeed it was a demonstration of the bankruptcy of the Taliban that should have tried to hold on to so much territory under the circumstances. Some weeks ago I pointed out that if I were Taliban I would have retreated from the cities and kept my army in tact. This would have left me in a better position to resist and even mount an offensive againt Western forces. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Mazaar el Sharif
It is now clear that Washington may launch tactical nuclear weapons against the Taliban. Given that they are now using the daisy cutter or whatever it is called it is clear from this and other circumstacnes that tacticla nuclear devices may be on the cards. It may be that the Taliban walked away from Mazaar el Sharif because their secret outside supporter(s) said that they could not continue to supply them. This is what apparently explained the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosova --even though the army was in tact. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Turkey and Central Asia
It has been reported that Turkey is sending in a small number of special troops for ground operations within Afghan territory. The Turkish state has a vested interest in seeing increased and prolonged US involvement in Central Asia. Clearly Turkey is making this military gesture as a means of maintaining a high state of instability in Central Asia. Given Turkey's fragile economic condition and dependence on US assistance the continued and even growing regional instability in Central Asia will lead to continued and increasing aid for Turkey from the USA. At the same time the continued involvement of Yankee imperialism in Afghanistan presents further problems and potential instability for Iraq and even Iran, two states that share borders with Turkey. This consequently strategically weakens these state's to Turkey thereby correspondingly strengthening Turkey. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Taliban/United Front alliance
Despite increased and more intensive bombings by Washington The National Islamic United Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (the United Front) now say that they cannot mount a ground attack on Taliban frontline positions until US carpet bombing is further increased. It is clear that strategically the United Front are delaying any offensive for other than the generally accepted reasons offered within the media. The United Front is putting off a ground offensive for as long as possible in the hope of forcing the US to deploy large scale land forces in Afghanistan. In this way the US will have been further sucked into the war thereby finding it increasingly difficult to extricate itself in the face of failure. This means that the United Front forces cannot be simply used by the US as mere mercenaries or proxy forces which to be abandoned as soon as the US achieves its goals. The United Front and Taliban have learned from the past practice of the US. After the US had used the mujahadeen to force the USSR out of Afghanistan it was unceremoniously abandoned by the US. This then led to the descent of Afghanistan into further economic and social meltdown. On a more venal note the United Front also know that significant US troops in Afghanistan will mean more dollars and improving living standards for the United Front forces. It must be remembered that many United Front soldiers have been joined up, under conditions of poverty, for a square meal. At the risk of gross exaggeration it may even be that the United Front and Taliban have formed some form of tacit alliance designed to force US troops into Afghanistan. Both sides have may have much to gain by US land engagement. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Carpet Bombing
As increassing oppostion to the bombing of Afghanistan mounts Bush/Blair increase the scale of bombing to engage in carpet bombing. This is how this duo respond to public and political opinion Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Fiannal Fail and the Mujahideen.
Pakistan has two reasons to support the so-called mujahideen. First, the Pakistani military is determined to pay India back for allegedly fomenting separatism in what was once East Pakistan and in 1971 became Bangladesh. Second, India dwarfs Pakistan in population, economic strength, and military might. In 1998 India spent about two percent of its $469 billion GDP on defense, including an active armed force of more than 1.1 million personnel. In the same year, Pakistan spent about five percent of its $61 billion GDP on defense, yielding an active armed force only half the size of India's. The U.S. government estimates that India has 400,000 troops in Indian-held Kashmir -- a force more than two-thirds as large as Pakistan's entire active army. The Pakistani government thus supports the irregulars as a relatively cheap way to keep Indian forces tied down. The Fianna Fail Government under Jack Lynch had plans to effect a similar situation. It hoped to fund and train its mujahideen, the right wing Provisional IRA. In that way the Catholic nationalist jihad would have proven to be a relatively cheap device for influencing the course of events within the 6 counties. This state inspired IRA could be used to influence British policy in the north. Yet the Irish government, like the Pakistani government, would have denied all association with IRA activity. Clearly Haughey was the principal architect behind this foreign policy adventure. The arms trial put an end to this policy. The Lynch government hoped, in this way, to exploit the national question as a means of building up its social base thereby guaranteeing its continuation in power. It was also meant as a counterweight to the growing influential Irish civil rights movement. The Provo fundamentalists were meant to undermine the growing social base sustaining the developing civil rights movement which was increasingly radicalising Irish politics. The Fianna Fail policy was designed to replace the growing radicalisation of the civil rights movement with conservative nationalism. In this way it was hoped to polarise the Irish working class into unionist and nationalist communities and thereby destroy the unifying tendencies of the civil rights movement. Had Fianna Fail succeeded in implementing this policy Irihs developments might have had a much different character today. The failure of this policy led to a serious weakening of Fianna Fail that saw its ability to form one party governments much reduced. Its abject failure was ultimately responsible for the split in Fianna Fail. Clearly had this policy been made effective it would have been more consistent with Fianna Fail's character. Its failure to successfully introduce this nationalist policy rendered Fianna Fail no different, in many ways, to Fine Gael. It was this identity problem that led to sustained tension within Fianna Fail and its resulting weakened state. However it is quite likely that if Fianna Fail had controlled the Irish jihad it might have been faced with somewhat similar problems to the ones that now bedevil Pakistan. Despite Fianna Fail ineffectiveness the Provo mujahideen did get off the ground. It did destroy the social base of the civil rights movement replacing it with provincial nationalism. This growing nationalism led to the increased polarisation of the nationalist and unionist working class. The only problem was that Fianna Fail exerted no direct influence over it. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
NY toll may be less than 3000
Irish Times NY toll may be less than 3,000 Conor O Cleary 26-10-01 Almost every day the official number of people declared dead and missing in the World Trade Centre attack is revised downwards - by 500 in the last week alone - as duplication and errors are discovered, reports Conor O'Clery THE US: The most recent figure compiled by the New York Police Department is 4,764 dead or missing combined from the twin towers and the two aircraft which struck them on September 11th. However, totals independently compiled by the New York Times, USA Today and the Associated Press are much lower. The New York Times can account for 2,943 dead or missing, USA Today 2,680 and AP 2,625. These include figures reported by companies of their casualties which in some cases are lower than widely reported. Cantor Fitzgerald, the worst affected firm, lost 657 staff, not the 750 originally thought. The media totals do not include undocumented workers but their number is unlikely to be more than a few dozen. It seems now that the final death toll will be much closer to 3,000 than the estimate of 6,000 in the days after the attacks. This points to the extraordinary success of the operation to clear people from the lower parts of the buildings and the concourse below in the 90 minutes before both towers collapsed. New Jersey officials who first thought that the state had lost 1,500 residents now put the figure at 525. The American Red Cross which is paying cheques to the families of the killed and missing, has only processed 2,563 cases.
Cluster bombs and food packages
BBC World Service have said that the US military have made a broadcast telling the people in Afghanistan not to mistake cluster bombs for food packages. Both are the same colour -yellow. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Hekmatyar and Taleban
BBC Exiled warlord 'in talks with Taleban' Hekmatyar wants to create an alliance with the Taleban Former Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has said he is in talks with both the Taleban and the opposition Northern Alliance on the creation of a united front to defend Afghanistan from the US-led military campaign. The leaders of the Northern Alliance hoped for the collapse of the Taleban in the first days of the American attacks Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The head of the once-powerful Mujahedin party Hezb-e-Islami, who lives in exile in Tehran, is fervently opposed to the US military action. We are in negotiations with the Taleban, in Kabul, Kandahar, Baraki, Jalalabad, but also in Peshawar [in Pakistan] to create a united front. [Taleban leader] Mullah Omar is being kept up to date on the progress, he told French news agency AFP. We are also in contact with the Northern Alliance forces, with all those in the interior and exterior of Afghanistan, who are involved in the conflict. No Taleban collapse He did not explicitly name which opposition leaders he had contacted, but added: The object of these discussions was to rally all those who want to defend our country. It is not a question of already distributing ministerial posts [in a post-Taleban government], or of who will control the region. He claimed Hezb-e-Islami forces were still numerous in Afghanistan, especially in the provinces of Nangarhar, Lugar, Jalalabad and Bamian, but denied that he wanted to eventually take control of the country. The leaders of the Northern Alliance had hoped for the collapse of the Taleban in the first days, even the first hours, of the American attacks, he said. They have now understood that it was not that easy. Kabul besieged An ethnic Pashtun, Hekmatyar fought against Soviet occupation in the 1980s and then against his Tajik rival, the late Ahmed Shah Masood, when the communist government collapsed in 1992 and both factions entered Kabul. Hekmatyar, who was excluded from the new Mujahedin government by President Burhanuddin Rabbani, lay siege to Kabul causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Within two years he and Rabbani were forced to flee as the Taleban descended on Kabul. Hekmatyar is yet another key Afghan figure to enter the fray. Before the start of the military campaign, he told the BBC that the US had no right to attack Afghanistan. He said the Americans were wrong to blame Osama Bin Laden for the attacks in New York and Washington, and warned that he would oppose them. The news follows unconfirmed reports that another former Mujahedin commander, Abdul Haq, has been executed by the Taleban after being caught in the east of Afghanistan. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
The war and workers' mobilisation
The worry for US/UK imperialism is not so much as to whether the military assault on Afghanistan will lead to a fall in electoral support. The primary worry is the danger of growing opposition to the bombings and the war, itself, leading to the mobilisation of the working class. The mobilisation of the working class against the war implies the development of class consciousness and corresponding class organisation. Such developments in class relations can lead to the increasing organisation of the working class as a class and its break away from the structures and ideologies that have obstructed its existence as a class. This means the replacement of the bourgeois trade union and social democratic structures by proletarian forms of organisation. The war against Afghanistan by the imperialist bourgeoisie (for both natural resources and geopolitical gain) contains the possibility of the working class challenging imperialist capital. It is this potential and deadly challenge that explains the extraordinary reluctance by the US/UK states to deploy its land armies in Afghanistan. These imperialist states acutely fear that increasing fatalities suffered by US/UK land forces will provide the catalyst that leads to the mobilisation of the working class against the imperialist war. Such a proletarian challenge to imperialist militarism will ultimately transform itself into a challenge by labour against capitalist exploitation of the working class in general. Under these conditions the balance of forces will have significantly swung against the imperialist bourgeoisie. This development of the class struggle will lead to a direct challenge to state power. In short US imperialism is so weak that it is unable to exploit one of the most powerful land armies in the world because of the potential threat from the working class. The Western working class has been in a quiescent state for many years now. This condition of the working class is the result of the massive indoctrination of bourgeois ideology into the working class; the prevention of communism by the existence social democracy and the trade union movement. The provision of relatively better living conditions foro much of the Western working class has been another condition necessary for the pacification of workers. The imperialist bourgeoisie expend much of their resources to ensure that the working class is maintained in a comatose condition. The fear among the bourgeoisie is that this war against Afghanistan for oil, gas and geo-political advantage may lead to the political awakening of the working class and the consequent challenge to capital's existence that this development entails. The present acquiescent state of the working class is not the fault of the working class. It is not as if the political apathy of the working class is due to the subjective character of individual workers -an inherent selfishness wilfully chosen by them because they just don't care. It is the product of a massively resourced strategy to maintain the working class in this condition. Neither is the conservatism of the Western working class a product of what Trotskyism calls the reactionary character of the leadership of the working class movement. The problem is much deeper than the subjectivist notion of the trotksyist crisis of leadership. It is the product of the existence of inherent political character of the trade unions themselves and social democratic political organisations. These bourgeois institutions institute and sustain the fragmentation of the working class rendering it impossible for workers to organise themselves into a class against capital. The working class must replace these bourgeois institutions with appropriate proletarian organisations if it to successfully challenge capital. Karl Carlile Be free to visit the web site of the Communist Global Group at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Fw: [COMMUNISM LIST]Fw: spo
I regularly receive these postings. Can anybody tell what they are about. Does anybody else receive such postings Karl - Original Message - From: Karl Carlile [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 11:51 PM Subject: [COMMUNISM LIST]Fw: spo Communism List: http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ Workers of the world unite! ___ - Original Message - From: ite1 To: Kazintour Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 2:41 PM Subject: spo õ×ÁÖÁÅÍÙÅ ËÏÌÌÅÇÉ, ÅÓÌÉ ÷Ù ÈÏÔÉÔÅ ÐÏÌÕÞÁÔØ ÏÐÅÒÁÔÉ×ÎÕÀ ÉÎÆÏÒÍÁÃÉÀ ÐÏ ËÁËÏÍÕ ÌÉÂÏ ÉÚ ÎÁÐÒÁ×ÌÅÎÉÊ ÕËÁÚÁÎÎÙÈ × ËÏÍÍÅÒÏÞÅÓËÏÍ ÐÒÅÄÌÏÖÅÎÉÉ, ÐÒÏÓÉÍ ÷ÁÓ ÎÁÐÉÓÁÔØ ÎÁÍ É ÍÙ ×ÙÛÌÅÍ ÷ÁÍ ÐÒÏÇÒÁÍÍÙ ÎÁ 2001-2002 ÇÏÄ. ôÏÌØËÏ × ÓÌÕÞÁÅ ÅÓÌÉ ÷Ù ÓÄÅÌÁÅÔÅ ÚÁÐÒÏÓ ÎÁ ËÁËÉÅ ÌÉÂÏ ÐÒÏÇÒÁÍÍÙ ÍÙ ÓÍÏÖÅÍ ÐÒÉÓÙÌÁÔØ ÷ÁÍ ÎÁÛÉ ÐÒÅÄÌÏÖÅÎÉÑ × ÄÁÌØÎÅÊÛÅÍ. ðÅÒ×ÁÑ ÞÁÓÔØ ÜÔÏÇÏ ÓÏÏÂÝÅÎÉÑ ËÏÍÍÅÒÞÅÓËÏÅ ÐÒÅÄÌÏÖÅÎÉÅ Ï ÓÏÔÒÕÄÎÉÞÅÓÔ×Å, ×ÔÏÒÁÑ ÓÐÅÃÉÁÌØÎÏÅ ÐÒÅÄÌÏÖÅÎÉÅ ÐÏ Ï.âÁÌÉ. íôë àÖÎÙÊ ãÅÎÔÒ Ô. (095) 2309394, 2304071, 9537104, 9537259 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] õ×ÁÖÁÅÍÙÅ ÄÁÍÙ É ÇÏÓÐÏÄÁ ! íÅÖÄÕÎÁÒÏÄÎÁÑ ôÕÒÉÓÔÉÞÅÓËÁÑ ëÏÍÐÁÎÉÑ àÖÎÙÊ ãÅÎÔÒ (ÌÉÃÅÎÚÉÑ ÷ 340368, ÁÔÔÅÓÔÁÔ ÁËËÒÅÄÉÔÁÃÉÉ ÐÏ ÓÅÒÔÉÆÉËÁÃÉÉ ÔÕÒÉÓÔÉÞÅÓËÉÈ ÕÓÌÕÇ òïóó.RV 0001.12 õé 09), ÐÒÅÄÌÁÇÁÅÔ ÷ÁÛÅÍÕ ×ÎÉÍÁÎÉÀ ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÉÅ ÐÒÏÇÒÁÍÍÙ: 1. ïÔÄÙÈ, ÔÕÒÉÚÍ ÐÒÉËÌÀÞÅÎÞÅÓËÉÅ É ÜËÓËÕÒÓÉÏÎÎÙÅ ÔÕÒÙ, ÜËÏ ÔÕÒÙ, ÌÅÞÅÎÉÅ É VIP ÐÒÏÇÒÁÍÍÙ ×ÅÓÎÏÊ, ÌÅÔÏÍ, ÏÓÅÎØÀ É ÚÉÍÏÊ 2001-2002 Ç.Ç. × ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÉÈ ÓÔÒÁÎÁÈ: áÒÇÅÎÔÉÎÁ, âÒÁÚÉÌÉÑ, ðÅÒÕ, ÷ÅÎÅÓÕÜÌÁ, ëÏÓÔÁ-òÉËÁ, ñÍÁÊËÁ, íÅËÓÉËÁ, þÉÌÉ, âÏÌÉ×ÉÑ, Ï-× ðÁÓÈÉ, üË×ÁÄÏÒ, çÁÌÁÐÁÇÏÓÓËÉÅ ÏÓÔÒÏ×Á;íÁ×ÒÉËÉÊ É ÄÒ. óÉÎÇÁÐÕÒ, ÏÓÔÒÏ×Á íÁÌÁÊÚÉÉ, éÎÄÏÎÅÚÉÉ, ôÁÊÌÁÎÄ; àáò, ëÅÎÉÑ; å×ÒÏÐÁ; åÇÉÐÅÔ, ôÕÎÉÓ, ïáü, ôÕÒÃÉÑ É ÄÒ. á ÔÁËÖÅ ÌÀÂÙÅ ÇÒÕÐÐÏ×ÙÅ É ÉÎÄÉ×ÉÄÕÁÌØÎÙÅ ÔÕÒÙ. 2. ïÂÕÞÅÎÉÅ É ÏÂÒÁÚÏ×ÁÎÉÅ ÚÁ ÒÕÂÅÖÏÍ: óûá, ëÁÎÁÄÁ, ÷ÅÌÉËÏÂÒÉÔÁÎÉÑ, á×ÓÔÒÁÌÉÑ, îÏ×ÁÑ úÅÌÁÎÄÉÑ, çÅÒÍÁÎÉÑ, æÒÁÎÃÉÑ, éÓÐÁÎÉÑ, éÔÁÌÉÑ É ÄÒ. ñÚÙËÏ×ÙÅ ÐÒÏÇÒÁÍÍÙ ÄÌÑ ÄÅÔÅÊ Ó 6 ÌÅÔ É ×ÚÒÏÓÌÙÈ, ÁËÁÄÅÍÉÞÅÓËÉÊ ÕÞÅÂÎÙÊ ÇÏÄ ÄÌÑ ÄÅÔÅÊ ÏÔ 6 ÌÅÔ (primery Schools) É ÐÏÄÒÏÓÔËÏ×, ËÕÒÓÙ ÐÏÄÇÏÔÏ×ËÉ Ë ÜËÚÁÍÅÎÁÍ TOEFL, IELTS, FCE É ÄÒ. MBA, ÐÏÄÇÏÔÏ×ËÁ É ÏÆÏÒÍÌÅÎÉÅ × ÚÁÒÕÂÅÖÎÙÅ éÎÓÔÉÔÕÔÙ É õÎÉ×ÅÒÓÉÔÅÔÙ. 3. éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÑ × áÒÇÅÎÔÉÎÕ É îÏ×ÕÀ úÅÌÁÎÄÉÀ. 4. ïÒÇÁÎÉÚÁÃÉÑ ÓÅÍÉÎÁÒÏ× É ËÏÎÆÅÒÅÎÃÉÊ × ÌÀÂÙÈ ÓÔÒÁÎÁÈ ÍÉÒÁ. 5. ÷ÉÚÙ, ÚÁÇÒÁÎÐÁÓÐÏÒÔÁ, × Ô.Þ. ÓÒÏÞÎÏ. 6. òÁÂÏÔÁ ÄÌÑ ÍÏÌÏÄÅÖÉ É ÓÔÕÄÅÎÔÏ× ÚÁ ÒÕÂÅÖÏÍ ÐÏ ÐÒÏÇÒÁÍÍÁÍ Au Pair, Camp USA, WorkTravel É Ô.Ð. ÷ÙÓÏËÉÊ ÕÒÏ×ÅÎØ ÓÅÒ×ÉÓÁ É ×ÙÓÏËÏÅ ËÁÞÅÓÔ×Ï ÏÂÓÌÕÖÉ×ÁÎÉÑ ÐÏÒÁÄÕÀÔ ÷ÁÓ É ÷ÁÛÉÈ ÄÒÕÚÅÊ. ó Õ×ÁÖÅÎÉÅÍ, çÅÎÅÒÁÌØÎÙÊ ÄÉÒÅËÔÏÒ éÓÁÅ×Á å.á. õ×ÁÖÁÅÍÙÅ ÄÁÍÙ É ÇÏÓÐÏÄÁ! ôÕÒÏÐÅÒÁÔÏÒ ÐÏ éÎÄÏÎÅÚÉÉ íôë àÖÎÙÊ ãÅÎÔÒ ÐÒÅÄÌÁÇÁÅÔ ÷ÁÍ ÏÔÄÏÈÎÕÔØ ÎÁ ÚÏÌÏÔÙÈ ÐÌÑÖÁÈ ÏÓÔÒÏ×Á âÁÌÉ × ÐÒÅËÒÁÓÎÏÍ ÏÔÅÌÅ RAMADA BINTANG BALI5* ïÔÅÌØ ÒÁÓÐÏÌÏÖÅÎ ÎÁ 7 ÇÅËÔÁÒÁÈ ÐÙÛÎÙÈ ÔÒÏÐÉÞÅÓËÉÈ ÓÁÄÏ×. ÷ÓÅ ÎÏÍÅÒÁ ÏÆÏÒÍÌÅÎÙÅ × ÂÁÌÉÊÓËÏÍ ÓÔÉÌÅ, ÉÍÅÀÔ ÂÁÌËÏÎ ÉÌÉ ÔÅÒÒÁÓÕ Ó ×ÉÄÏÍ ÎÁ ÔÒÏÐÉÞÅÓËÉÅ ÓÁÄÙ ÉÌÉ ÏËÅÁÎ. úÄÅÓØ ÷Ù ÐÏÞÕ×ÓÔ×ÕÅÔÅ ×ÓÀ ÒÏÓËÏÛØ ÐÅÒ×ÏËÌÁÓÓÎÏÇÏ ËÕÒÏÒÔÁ, ËÏÔÏÒÙÊ ÓÔÁÎÅÔ ÄÌÑ ÷ÁÓ ÓËÁÚÏÞÎÙÍ ÍÅÓÔÏÍ ÷ÁÛÅÊ ÍÅÞÔÙ. ÷ ÏÔÅÌÅ ÐÒÅËÒÁÓÎÙÊ ÂÁÓÓÅÊÎ Ó ×ÏÄÏÐÁÄÁÍÉ É ÄÖÁËÕÚÉ, ÔÅÎÎÉÓÎÙÅ ËÏÒÔÙ, ÐÌÏÝÁÄËÁ ÄÌÑ ÐÌÑÖÎÏÇÏ ×ÏÌÅÊÂÏÌÁ, ÓÁÕÎÁ, ÏÚÄÏÒÏ×ÉÔÅÌØÎÙÊ É ÏÍÏÌÁÖÉ×ÁÀÝÉÊ ÃÅÎÔÒ, ÄÅÔÓËÉÊ ÂÁÓÓÅÊÎ É ÐÌÏÝÁÄËÁ, 7 ÐÒÅËÒÁÓÎÙÈ ÒÅÓÔÏÒÁÎÏ× É ÂÁÒÏ×, ËÁÒÁÏËÅ É Ô.Ä. óÔÏÉÍÏÓÔØ ÎÁ ÞÅÌÏ×ÅËÁ × DBL 1585$ SNGL 1809$ ÷ÙÌÅÔÙ ËÁÖÄÏÅ ×ÏÓËÒÅÓÅÎØÅ. ÷ ÓÔÏÉÍÏÓÔØ ×ÈÏÄÉÔ: Á×ÉÁÐÅÒÅÌÅÔÙ áÜÒÏÆÌÏÔ + Garuda ÐÒÏÖÉ×ÁÎÉÅ 10 ÄÎÅÊ Ó ÚÁ×ÔÒÁËÁÍÉ ÔÒÁÎÓÆÅÒ ÍÅÄ. ÓÔÒÁÈÏ×ËÁ ×ÉÚÁ ðïäáòïë óÐÅÃÉÁÌØÎÏ ÄÌÑ ÷ÁÓ ÍÙ ÐÒÉÇÏÔÏ×ÉÌÉ ÐÏÄÁÒÏË: ÒÏÍÁÎÔÉÞÅÓËÉÊ ÕÖÉÎ ÄÌÑ Ä×ÏÉÈ, ÜËÓËÕÒÓÉÑ ÎÁ ×ÕÌËÁÎ ëÉÎÔÁÍÁÎÉ, 60 ÍÉÎ. ÏÍÏÌÁÖÉ×ÁÀÝÉÈ ÐÒÏÃÅÄÕÒ SPA( ÍÁÓÓÁÖ-ÓËÒÁÂ, ÓÁÕÎÁ, ÄÖÁËÕÚÉ) - ÅÓÌÉ ÷Ù ÅÄÅÔÅ ÓÅÍØÅÊ ÉÌÉ ÒÁÆÔÉÎÇ, ÜËÓËÕÒÓÉÑ × ÂÁÌÉÊÓËÕÀ ÄÅÒÅ×ÎÀ É SPA - ÅÓÌÉ ÷Ù ÒÅÛÉÌÉ ÅÈÁÔØ ËÏÍÐÁÎÉÅÊ. ÷ÙÂÏÒ ÚÁ ÷ÁÍÉ. ðÏ ÷ÁÛÅÍÕ ÖÅÌÁÎÉÀ ÍÙ ÐÏÄÂÅÒÅÍ ÷ÁÍ ÌÀÂÏÊ ÏÔÅÌØ. ú×ÏÎÉÔÅ, ÐÒÉÈÏÄÉÔÅ, ×ÙÂÉÒÁÊÔÅ É ÏÔÄÙÈÁÊÔÅ! íÙ ÔÏ ÚÎÁÅÍ, ÞÔÏ ÅÓÌÉ ÅÓÔØ ÒÁÊ ÎÁ ÚÅÍÌÅ, ÔÏ ÏÎ ÎÁÈÏÄÉÔÓÑ ÎÁ ÏÓÔÒÏ×Å âÁÌÉ! ðÏ ×ÓÅÍ ×ÏÐÒÏÓÁÍ ÏÔÎÏÓÉÔÅÌØÎÏ ÒÁÑ ÏÂÒÁÝÁÊÔÅÓØ ÐÏ ÔÅÌ.(095)953-7259, 953-7104, 230-4071, 230-9394 ( ÓÐÒÁÛÉ×ÁÊÔÅ Ï ÓËÉÄËÁÈ!) Communism List ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2000 less kille
It now transpires that about 2000 less people were killed in tha attack on the twin towers. The figures it appears were exaggerated. Yet Blair continues to say 6000 thousand or so people were killed. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Abdul Hak
The attempt by the CIA to organise opposition within Afghanistan against Taliban forces through Abdul Hak explains the curious developments that have been taking place and to which I referred in my last despatch. The softening diplomatic language emanating from Washington has to do with prepaarations to organise internal military and political opposition within Aghanistan by splittin Taliban forces. Clearly the Yankees are desperate to get proxy forces to sacrifice themselves on behalf of US oil and geopolitical interests. Karl Be free to visit the Communist Global Group's website at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/FIST
Bombings
The attack on Aghanistan by the US continues. The bombs increasingly fall on civilian areas killing and wounding increasing numbers of non-combatants. Yet the western mainstream media continues to provide reports on the matter as if they it is providing reports on interstellar activity in deep space that make no perceptible impact on the lives of humanity on planet earth. It looks like the US can bomb away to its hearts content, it is now known that it is using cluster bombs, for as long as likes. It now looks as if the western media will preserve its silence on US atrocities. It now looks as if the political parties in the west from left to right will ignore the significance of what is being done by the US in Afghanistan. It now looks as if racism in the West is so inherent in this society that the attack on the Afghanistanian people can take any form that the US desires. It now looks as if it does not really matter to the Western media, politicians and public what is really inflicted on the masses over there. It is of miniscule concern because it is some god forsaken backward land filled with Pakis or whatever! One positive feature of this military attack is its unveiling of the essential character of the bourgeois media. It reveals, what is not so obvious under more normal conditions, the inherently bourgeois character of the media. This is revealed in the way that it actively sustains the ideological and political conditions necessary for the pursuit of the imperialism's military actions. This ranges from tabloid jingoism to grossly partisan analysis to revisionist reporting lacking all empathy. The active bourgeois character of the mainstream media brings home to communists the need to create a communist media. It brings home to communists the need to subject economic analysis provided by the bourgeois ideologues to great scrutiny. It is not good enough to quote OECD and other reports as if confirmation of our analysis. We must not assume that the statistical analysis and interpretation of bourgeois ideologues is reliable. We must develop the resources to provide our own such analysis and interpretations. The opposition to the war in the West, although relatively small, is not insignificant. Yet it is still an opposition that is not strong enough to be a cause of concern to the imperialist bourgeoisie. It is as if the odd protest here or there is of little or no concern to this reactionary bourgeoisie. This is because the working class in the West must mobilise against the war by mobilising against the imperialist bourgeoisie. The problem is that social democracy and stalinism have done such an effective job in disarming the western working class that there is little chance at present of an effective mobilisation in the absence of the overthrowal of its current leadership and the organisation and political structures through which the working class is organised. These are the reformist structures that have so successfully rendered the working class ineffective: social democracy, stalinism and the trade unions. The Western working clas must free itself of these bourgeois forms if it stands any chance of effectively confronting imperialism. If the Western working class cannot defend its own living standards and working conditions it is hardly in a position to mount an effective challenge to the present military attack by imperialism on Afghanistan. The obvious success of the bourgeoisie in attacking the living standards and working conditions of workers in the Wet is the principal condition that provides that class with the confidence to freely to subject the Afghan masses to relentless bombing. Before signing off I just want to add one caveat. There are the odd individual pieces written by liberal journalists, such as Robert Fisk and John Pilger, that make some attempt to highlight real events and their significance --even if from a more liberal and thereby limited stance. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Secret Afghan war
A few very fast off the cuff observations. The situation is rapidly changing. I am not as pessimistic as before. There something strange abroad. Rumsfield is reported to have said that they may never catch OBL. A top admiral has said something along the lines that the Taliban are sturdy warriors. It has also been said by a Washington source that Taliban forces have been more difficult to dislodge than previously anticipated. There have been apparently no more ground landings by the Yankees since the last one which took place over a week ago. They seem to be afraid to deploy ground forces --perhaps partly because of what is called the Vietnam syndrome and partly because they lack the confidence. The Northern Confederation apparently play volley ball on the front line and are increasingly being presented as a rag bag bunch of cods. They have apparently retreated back half a mile from the Kabul front in the aftermath of a recent bombardment by Taliban of their front line position. NC say that the Yankees are not air striking the front line positions of Taliban forces at Kabul. They say that the strikes are not sufficient. Whether this is true or not I cannot say. But it may be that the NC want to invade Kabul only when they there is no fighting to be done --only when the Yankees have carpet bombed the Taliban forces positioned there out of existence. We were told that special forces are behing the Taliban front line --British as well if my memory serves me right-- weeks ago. Now we are being informed that they are only getting ready to go in. This is a secret war. The Taliban regime refuses journalists entry to its territory because they are afraid that among them may be Yankee spies. This is understandable. Concerning the Yankees. We have to accept their reports as accurate. Even the photographs of targets shown by them could be photographs of Texas or anywhere. Already they have been proven to be liars. They said that the Taliban were liars and that no helicopter went down. Later they admitted that a helicopter had gotten into difficulty in Afghanistan and consequently lost some body parts --but escaped? Really when it gets down to it we cannot be at all sure what is going on inside Afghanistan. It is a classically secret war. The Yankees may be taking casualties --we just dont know. Elements within the mainstream media seem to be shifting ground away from their crude Yankee jingoistic position. Moderate Muslims in the UK are growing in confidence in their criticisms of the bombings. Blair for all his spinning could not effect even a temporary settlement in the Middle East. This will not endear him to the rest of Europe since now their Middle East policy has, if they ever had any, has now lost all credibility because of big mouth Bungling Blair. Now the the bourgeois media are discovering that oil may be a decisive factor explaining Yankee military intervention. As if it did not know that three weeks ago. The role of the mainstream needs to be carefully analysed. On many critical issues it tends to follow a pattern. Gung ho support for the ruling class politicians right across the board. Then as the situation has progressed a certain distancing of themselves from the actions of these politicial leaders. And then more outright criticism --even limited. It is a mechanism that must be analysed. It may be that the Yankees are about to mount a surprise ground offensive and are acting as they are to take the Taliban off guard --just dont know. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Pakistan and Islamic militancy
Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the source of Islamic militancy. Pakistan has been using Islamic militants as a instrument in its foreign policy. Consequently it has been responsible, with the support of Saudia Arabia and the US, for the export of Islamic militant forces to Afghanistan, Chechyna and elsewhere. The US is targeting the wrong country. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Conditions and the Taliban
Islamic fundamentalism is not just an ideology but a social form specifically adapted to the conditions in Afghanistan. With its mosques and other social institutions it constitutes Afghani society in a way that is beyond the capacity of the Northern Confederation. Consequently the imperialist bourgeoisie's attempt to destroy this unique state is tantamount to the destruction of the very conditions necessary if Afghanistan is to emerge from its medieval like conditions. The imperialist bourgeoisie's massive attack on the Taliban is evidence of the limitations and obsolescence of that class and the need to replace it. It demonstrates the imperialist bourgeoisie's crass stupidity. Instead of seeking to build on the conditions constructed by the Taliban to create the objective conditions required for a democratic secular society it feverishly strives to destroy such conditions. The Taliban army's Islamic fundamentalist character invests its soldiers with a passionate drive that renders them fearless in the face of the enemy. In many ways the Taliban is analogous to Cromwell's Roundheads. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Taliban, Pakistan and US
Pakistan has been seeking to extend its regional power base in Central Asia. The attack on Afghanistan by US/UK imperialism constitutes a response to this Pakistani colonialism. Without Pakistan's support there would have been no Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Pakistan's strategy is the extension of its influence, even control, over Afghanistan by ensuring that a compliant force, the Taliban, is in power. In this way Pakistan would have significantly extended its strategic influence within central Asia. This strategic advantage would have been of geopolitical and commercial significance. Under these conditions Pakistan would have significant influence over the fuel and other resources in Afghanistan. Its influence, even colonisation, of Afghanistan would have strengthened its position concerning its relationship with India over the Kashmir question. An expanded Pakistan would be better placed to further extend its influence over the entire Central Asian region. This would provide Pakistan with immeasurable political and commercial power. This would mean its increased influence over the surrounding countries. Perhaps even the further colonialist expansion of Pakistan beyond Afghanistan into neighbouring Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The Pakistani bourgeoisie hoped to realise these imperialist ambitions through the exploitation of Islamic fundamentalism. Through the exploitation of Islamic fundamentalism it hoped to create a Pakistan that extended its tentacles into all of Central Asia --an Islamic Central Asian state or federation. The realisation of this ambition would have better placed it to proceed to the colonisation of Kashmir. It is these ambitions that constitute the greatest danger to the Indian state. Consequently India utilises Kashmir as a political device to thwart Pakistani ambitions. However the Taliban have been proving to be less than fully compliant. The Taliban government has been proving a growing concern for Pakistan. The Taliban even entertain ambitions of its own that are not entirely congruent with Pakistani ambitions. Given this state of affairs the US/UK attack on Afghanistan is essentially an attack on Pakistan. It is the expansionist Pakistani state that US/UK imperialism is seeking to contain. US/UK imperialism cannot tolerate the emergence of a Pakistani regional power in Central Asia possessing increasingly significant geo-political and economic power. Musharraf has been cleverly exploiting the domestic unrest in Pakistan provoked by Western intervention in Afghanistan to pressurise US imperialism into accepting the installation of a new regime in Afghanistan acceptable to Pakistan in the aftermath of the expected fall of the Taliban. If Pakistan is getting its way, and it looks like it is, this means that Washington has been expending considerable resources in an attack on the Taliban regime of which the end result will be a new Afghani regime more compliant to Pakistan while possessing greater international credibility. In a sense, then, the US will have undertaken a politically delicate intervention to further the interests of Pakistan while weakening its own imperialist interests. If this turns out to be the case then the terrorist attack on New York and Washington will have had its desired effect. It will have provoked an over-reaction from the Bush administration leading to the weakening rather than the strengthening of US imperialism. However this will intensify capitalist contradictions that will make the global situation potentially more explosive. Rather than its military intervention leading to the defeat of Islamic fundamentalism it may lead to its growth. The result in the long run, among other things, will be more terrorist activity. Clearly the terrorist attack on New York and Washington and the character of Bush's reaction to it is an expression of the weakness of US imperialism. Under these conditions the attack on Pakistan, through its attack on Afghanistan, will have played right into the hands of Pakistan. Obviously the situation is very delicate. One misconceived move by Pakistan could see its entire strategy collapse like a house of cards. This is particularly true because of the unstable political, social and economic conditions that obtain in Pakistan. The recent Musharraf coup d'etat together with Pakistan's expansionist strategy are confirmation of this instability. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Taliban defeat
It is obvious that in the absence of support from its creators Saudia Arabia and particularly Pakistan the Taliban will disingtegrate in the face of imperialist aggression. The Taliban is nothing without Pakistan. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/
Terrorism and the Left
is an expression of the absence of communism within the working class. As communism grows within the working class terrorism correspondingly diminishes. However under conditions of a growing communist movement the bourgeoisie deliberately fosters terrorism as a device to disarm and undermine the growing communist movement. Consequently Bush's declaration of war on terrorism is a war that he cannot and does not want to win. If anything what Washington seeks is the control of terrorism. To conclude: The only way terrorism can be eliminated is by replacing capitalist social relations with communist ones. This means social revolution. I care about the thousands of workers killed and injured in Afghanistan and Manhattan. This is why I am a communist. Regards Karl Carlile (Communist Global Group) Be free to join our communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ PS Please excuse the draft character of this piece.
Anti-war movement
Workers must join together in opposition to the imperialist war that is being waged against the working class. Although the pretext for this war is the terrorist attack in Manhattan and Washington the campaign being mounted by the Bush administration is ultimately a campaign against the working class. Already US imperialism's policies have led to the deaths of over 6000 people and the intensification of economic recession causing thousand of workers to loose their jobs. The imperialist policies of the Bush cabal has led to rises in the price of oil which will further eat into the living standards of struggling workers around the world. The declared war will lead to deaths and injury of workers. It will also lead to further economic hardship and pain. The anti-war movement must be organised on the basis of a workers' attack on the state. This should involve demonstrations, strikes and even occupations.
